Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Concessionary Fares (London)

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of discussions between the London boroughs and the transport operators regarding the London concessionary fares scheme for 1993–94.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I understand that the boroughs have reached agreement with London Transport and British Rail to continue the existing scheme for 1993–94.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister realise that, year after year, there is anxiety about the scheme and the way in which the Government leave it to be funded in this rather ad hoc way? If we are not to pay a decent pension, we need to have a decent concessionary fares scheme that elderly people believe, with conviction, will continue and not be subject to the vagaries of local authority funding from year to year.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the arrangement enshrined in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 allows precisely for that to happen. It provides that the boroughs agree a scheme with London Transport every year. In the event that they do not, a reserve scheme, which is in the Act, comes into effect. That means that, each year, the boroughs and London Transport, as they have done this year, reach a straightforward settlement.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of the scheme is now in excess of £120 million a year for the 32 London boroughs, that it may disproportionately be taken up by the better off and that it costs over 20 per cent. of each of the 32 London boroughs' social services budgets? Is not there a case for giving elderly people a better choice about how that money is spent?

Mr. Norris: I note what my right hon. Friend says, but he will agree that the principle that underlies the present arrangements is that the boroughs, in concert, should agree whatever scheme they believe to be appropriate. Having done so, the scheme is agreed with London Transport and the reserve scheme operates only in the event that they are unable to come to an agreement.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that questions such as that asked by the right hon. Member for Westminster,

North (Sir J. Wheeler) greatly concern people who benefit from the scheme in London? Can he ensure that, in any discussions that take place, no restriction will be placed on the way in which people can travel throughout London, irrespective of where they live, and that that right will continue?

Mr. Norris: We made it clear that we intend to give the boroughs the right to continue to operate a concessionary fares scheme. The content of that scheme is entirely a matter for the boroughs, but the hon. Gentleman will note the agreement that has been reached this year, of the details of which, as in other years, he is well aware.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks and congratulations of all my pensioner and disabled constituents who are delighted that the scheme is going ahead for another year? Will he also accept my regrets at the way in which every year certain groups, whose motives are to be questioned, say that the scheme is threatened, thereby worrying pensioners? Is there any chance of the scheme being agreed a little earlier in the coming year? That would be welcome.

Mr. Norris: I am sure that I do not deserve my hon. Friend's thanks, but I am grateful for gratitude from whatever quarter it comes. As for timing, the length of the negotiations is a matter for the boroughs and London Transport. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that it is the existence of the reserve scheme, which comes into effect if the boroughs fail to reach agreement, which has ensured that they reach agreement by the stated date.
The boroughs are well seized of the importance that the elderly attach to the scheme. I am sure that in future, in a deregulated bus market, the boroughs will want to continue to provide the facility that is now available and to pay for it as they do at present.

River Transport (London)

Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve transport in London by river.

Mr. Norris: I recently announced the formation of the River Thames working group which, under my chairmanship, will study the potential for developing freight and passenger traffic on the river and identify the scope for private sector improvements.

Ms. Hoey: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the river is vastly underused as a form of public transport for Londoners. Will he congratulate London Riverbus on managing to put together another deal that means that it can survive for a little longer? Does he agree that the only way in which we shall see the river used by Londoners is to bring river transport within the London travel network card?

Mr. Norris: It is precisely because I agree with the hon. Lady that we should fully exploit the potential of the Thames—not only for passengers, but for non-time sensitive bulk cargo, tourism and so on—that the working party has been established. I am glad that London Riverbus appears to have its funding in place for the rest of the year. It has, of course, always been a private sector initiative. It is supported now by private bodies because they recognise that it has marketing potential.
The hon. Lady will know that the present access arrangements are based on the concept of revenue forgone. Given the high operating costs of London Riverbus, the management accepts that a straight transfer to the travel card would be impracticable. It has raised the issue with me on several occasions and I know that it attaches importance to the matter.

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will know that the Thames is the northern boundary of Dartford constituency. Apart from separating Kent from Essex, it is a greatly underused resource. Does he agree that if more freight and commuter traffic could be moved on to the river, congestion on the roads would be reduced enormously in south-east London?

Mr. Tony Banks: Stand up for Essex.

Mr. Norris: To respond to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary invitation to stand up for Essex, I can say only that I can think of better uses for the Thames than keeping us in Essex away from the good people of Kent. For what it is worth, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is entirely right. About 40 per cent. of London's domestic waste, for example, is transported down the Thames by barge. That means that every day literally dozens of heavy lorry movements do not take place, with the result that some of the congestion on our roads is relieved by river transportation. We want that potential to be exploited to the full.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister's River Thames committee consider the proposal to have on the river a floating heliport that could move around 22 sites between Battersea and the Thames barrier? Apparently it would need no planning arrangements or agreements, so implementation would be a matter for the Minister. If he knows about the proposal to have 4,000 annual civil flights and 400 military flights, will he tell us more about the 400 military flights? Will they be by helicopter gunships to ensure that the unemployed are following up the workfare scheme?

Mr. Norris: I know of that proposal and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that several aspects of it seem bizarre to say the least. It clearly cannot be right that the facility should be provided ad hoc. It is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I assure him I share. I shall make sure that the project is fully explored by the Government before it is taken further.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the river service that will shortly start between Gravesend and Canary Wharf. Let us hope that it will extend further to central London and even to Speaker's Steps. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure proper access to pontoons up the river into central London and, indeed, the provision of further pontoons because it is absurd that constituents who commute cannot use this magnificent 20-lane motorway into central London?

Mr. Norris: I welcome the new ideas that are being advanced to expand use of the Thames, especially long-range use from areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency into central London. The working party was

set up to investigate access to wharves, quays and pontoons and to ensure that, where possible, the Government consider all the possibilities.

Birmingham Northern Relief Road

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the Birmingham northern relief toll road on congestion on the M6 motorway.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is estimated by the concessionaire, Midlands Expressway, that, on opening the tolled Birmingham northern relief road, M6 flows between junctions 4 and 11 would be relieved by about 28,000 vehicles per day of through traffic.

Mr. O'Brien: Was not the Birmingham northern relief road originally scheduled to relieve congestion on the M6? It now seems that the Government may be considering whether to toll the M6 after the widening that is due to take place towards the end of the 1990s. Are the Government now considering a general policy whereby motorways may be tolled if they have been modernised or widened?

Mr. Carlisle: The Birmingham northern relief road stands on its own merits; it is a much-needed road. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are issuing a Green Paper on the financing of roads and the implications for the Birmingham northern relief road will be considered as part of the wider consultations. The new relief road to the north of Birmingham is critical for traffic not only around Birmingham but in the north-west and on local roads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, such as the A38 and A446, which are over-congested because of crowded conditions on the M6.

Tankers

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made since 5 January to the International Maritime Organisation, regarding the safe routing of tankers in British coastal waters; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): Since 5 January, three meetings have been held at which International Maritime Organisation officials were present. In addition, there has been a substantial discussion at the emergency Transport and Environment Council in Brussels. We expect shortly the Commission's communication on marine safety, for which we have been urgently pressing. I hope that this will be discussed at the next two Transport Council meetings, which may lead to further representations to the IMO.

Mr. Wallace: Can the Secretary of State clarify the position that emerged after last Thursday's meeting, which was chaired by his Department and involved a number of bodies involved in shipping? Can he confirm whether it is intended that the Pentland Firth and the Fair Isle Channel will become a no-go area? The Braer may have been observing the voluntary ban within a 10-mile radius from Shetland. The key is not necessarily a ban but proper monitoring of shipping using those channels. What


assessment has been made of radar surveillance in British coastal waters? Will the right hon. Gentleman take forward these proposals to the IMO?

Mr. MacGregor: I am willing to listen to various suggestions that we might wish to take to the IMO, including the outcome of Lord Donaldson's inquiry. As a result of last Thursday's meeting between tanker owners and operators and my Department, provisions are being drawn up for a code of voluntary restrictions on tankers operating in sensitive areas such as the two that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It will be a voluntary code, because to have a compulsory code it is essential to work through the IMO, which is why I have always stressed the need to reach agreement in the IMO. Radar surveillance all round our coast would be extremely expensive. We must, therefore, carefully consider the cost benefits. If one tries to introduce directions as a result of monitoring it could have implications for international law.

Mr. Adley: In welcoming the announcement that my right hon. Friend made about the meeting last Thursday, may I ask him to press on with his discussions with our Community partners? Does he agree that the Community is in a very strong position to exercise significant influence in the IMO and, as member Governments are likely to be more responsive to environmental concerns than a rather remote body such as the IMO, is not it a good opportunity to take our policy further?

Mr. MacGregor: That is the point. If we are to get agreement on further measures at IMO level, which has never proved particularly easy or quick, the more agreement we achieve in the European Community on measures that could be urged there, the better. That has been the purpose of our discussions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the United Kingdom took a leading part in those discussions in January, as it did when it was president in the previous six months. Indeed, we were commended for the action that we took during the Braer incident.

Mr. Prescott: Although the House will welcome the Secretary of State's statement about moving towards some statutory control of the routings of vessels through that area, does he accept that the problem is that rogue operators and rogue ships take no notice of statutory enforcement or codes and that the only effective measure that they recognise is the possibility of getting caught? First, has he approached Norway and Russia about asking such ships to deposit their route movements with them when they pick up their cargoes? Secondly, it is nonsense to suggest that we have to wait for the IMO to get radar coverage in that area. Radar coverage is absolutely essential and the Government should decide to implement it now as the best form of deterrent.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I did not suggest that we needed IMO approval to have radar surveillance. I said that it involved substantial costs and that we should consider the cost benefits of implementing it all round the country. The hon. Gentleman was wrong on the first point, but, on the second, I agree that the tightening of port state controls, including the issue to which he referred, is certainly one of the most effective ways to bring pressure to bear on substandard ships. That is why we have given it high priority in the United Kingdom, where 30 per cent. of

ships are now subjected to port state control—that is way above the target—and where the number of ships detained has increased substantially in recent years. I agree that it is important to target more and that is an issue which we wish to take up internationally.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: There will be a general welcome for getting in place as many voluntary measures as possible, but does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve the reduction there must be risk assessment? Would not it be a good idea to have radar surveillance in some of the most environmentally sensitive areas and the video recording of movements so that experts can consider what should be part of the voluntary agreement and what we should be asking for on a statutory basis later?

Mr. MacGregor: I see the point of it when there are benefits to be gained for the cost of putting such a system in place. That is why we have it in the Dover straits, where there are significant benefits. My hon. Friend's second point can be considered in the context of the Donaldson inquiry, although, even in that case, there could be implications for international law if one wanted to follow up the surveillance with positive measures.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is little benefit in removing tankers from the Minches if the new rule takes them within four miles of the coastline of the Outer Hebrides? Will he therefore urgently consider surveying a new route 40 to 50 miles from the coastline?

Mr. MacGregor: The question of alternative routes, especially in extremely bad weather such as that during the Braer incident, is very much part of the arrangements that might be made and I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is considered.

Road Building

Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the response has been to the future road building programme as announced in the autumn statement.

Mr. MacGregor: The 41 new scheme starts, costing over £1.3 billion, which I announced last Thursday have been widely welcomed by the construction industry and road users, as were the 41 local road schemes that I announced in the transport supplementary grant settlement last December.

Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is correct in assuming that the construction industry will welcome the increase of thousands of jobs? We hope to hear a welcome from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), too. Above all, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the replacement for Poole bridge, which is desperately needed in my constituency, maintains its place in the programme and goes ahead as promised?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of my announcement last week for jobs in the construction industry. Next year, the programme will involve as many as 30,000 jobs in the industry. I was not surprised that there was hardly a welcome from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when I made the announcement. There is no doubt that


the record programme is good not only for jobs, but for the economy in terms of improving our road communications.
On the Poole harbour crossing, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that there will be public consultation in the spring. Following that, we shall press ahead with the scheme, although the completion date will depend on satisfactory progress through the statutory processes and, of course, on the availability of funds when those processes are completed.

Mr. Harvey: Is the Government's objective in proposing a Green Paper on road tolling to alter patterns of road use for environmental reasons or to raise revenue for the Treasury? If the objective is to raise revenue, is not it a bit steep to charge taxpayers to use roads for which they have already paid? If the objective is environmental, should not the revenue go to public transport?

Mr. MacGregor: We are pursuing environmental purposes in many ways in the road programme. As I said last week, next year we shall spend £2.2 billion in terms of capital investment in public transport. Given that 90 per cent. of passengers and freight now go by road, the figure compares favourably with the £2.9 billion of capital investment in roads.
One of the key issues in the Green Paper is that, to ensure that by the end of the century and beyond we do not have congestion on our motorways and principal roads, we may need to consider additional sources of finance to get the programme completed as quickly as we can. Even given the record programme of road building through taxpayers' funds, the main purpose of the Green Paper is to see whether private finance can augment public finance. I stress that it will be a Green Paper.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this programme is both helpful and exciting for the construction industry? I hope that he will continue with the programme beyond the present proposals. Will my right hon. Friend concentrate more of the effort in urban areas? In towns such as Reading there is major congestion. Will he also ensure that the planning process does not slow the development of such roads?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, if my hon. Friend looks at the public expenditure programme announced last autumn, he will see that we are maintaining a high level of road building in years two and three. There is a concentration on the urban question—I know that this does not affect my hon. Friend—both in the considerable expenditure in London in next year's programme and in the substantial number of bypasses that are now included in the road programme.
On planning inquiries, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the amount of time that we take to go through the public consultation and public inquiry processes before we can start building a road. I am studying the issue carefully to see whether we can speed up the process in a way that is compatible with maintaining the rights of individuals.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State offer any experiments on road pricing and tolling? Does he accept that the Government raise three times more in road tax than is spent on road transport? Does he accept that that

means a double whammy, in that he is trying to find a new tax to pay for the debt that the Government have imposed on this country and on its economic development?

Mr. MacGregor: That has to be nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not have hypothecation of taxes in this country. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should put more money into the road programme without considering the questions that will be raised in the Green Paper, does that mean that he has now abandoned the charge that he sometimes makes that we do not have a level playing field between road and rail?

Mr. Burns: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend a way in which his Department's budget on road building would be saved and in which expenditure could be diversified to please many of my constituents? If my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to cancel the appointment of the consultants who are studying the proposed new M12, for which nobody has asked and which no one wants, and if he used the money for other more important road projects, such as upgrading the A12 from the M25 to Chelmsford, he would kill two birds with one stone. He would please my constituents and improve road communications to the hinterland of East Anglia and to Chelmsford.

Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend has said. That point of view has been pressed on me by other hon. Members from the same part of the country. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will be visiting Essex shortly to consider those issues and I am sure that he will also take into account what my hon. Friend has said.

A1 (Ferrybridge)

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains his policy for the route of the A1 to pass through Ferrybridge in West Yorkshire under the upgrading scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I announced the preferred route for the proposed A1 motorway between Redhouse and Hook Moor on 1 December 1992. The route passes to the west of Ferrybridge away from the built-up area. At present, detailed scheme design is under way.

Mr. O'Brien: Why is the Minister being so unfair and unkind to the communities in Ferrybridge and Pontefract which will border the new motorway? Why is he unconcerned about the health of the children at Ferrybridge junior and infant school, which will be near the motorway? Why is he indifferent to the people and communities of Ferrybridge and Pontefract by not allowing the motorway to go around their towns and communities, as happens in so many other areas? Why is the Minister being so uncharitable to those communities?

Mr. Carlisle: I know that the hon. Gentleman lives very close to the preferred route, but we believe that it is the best route. If we opted for the alternative route to the east of Knottingley, the journey would be much longer. Over the years, that would cost the country tens of millions of pounds more. However, there will be a public inquiry into the scheme and local communities and everyone interested in the road will have a full opportunity to put their views, which will be heard by an independent inspector. The upgrading of the A1 is truly important to the economy of


the whole of the east of the country. We plan to upgrade the road to motorway standard between the M25 and Newcastle over the next 10 years. That is much needed.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of all of us for the care that he is taking with regard to the upgrading of the A 1 and the careful planning of the M 1-M62 motorway? Will he take into account the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) for the communities beside the road? Those fears are becoming increasingly important.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is very important that roads are designed with great sensitivity and, wherever possible, are removed from communities. There are now much better techniques to achieve that. In addition to earth mounds, we now have the real prospect of much quieter surfaces such as porous asphalt. We shall be using porous asphalt for the first time in a commercial contract in the coming year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) for the way in which he represents the concerns of his constituents. He will be coming to see me very shortly about the M1-M62 link.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: When will the Minister upgrade the Al in Northumberland, where there has been carnage over the years and deaths galore? I remind the Minister that Northumberland is in England, and not in Scotland——

Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the A l in the area of Ferrybridge and West Yorkshire.

Mr. Campbell: It goes on from there.

Madam Speaker: I realise that; it starts much further south as well. I call Mr. Stephen to ask Question 9.

Shipping Accidents

Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken at the International Maritime Organisation to improve compensation arrangements for shipping accidents.

Mr. MacGregor: The United Kingdom took a leading role in the adoption in 1992 of protocols ensuring higher limits of liability in the event of an oil spill. We are also doing so in the development of the convention to ensure high levels of compensation in the event of a chemical spill and in other ways.

Mr. Stephen: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about compensation, our principal concern must be to prevent the accidents from occurring in the first place. In relation to the English channel, which is of particular concern to my constituents, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is adequate radar surveillance of that very busy shipping lane and that if a vessel is seen to be contravening the rules for navigation in the English channel it will he contacted immediately by radio and that other ships will also be contacted by radio to warn them of the danger?

Mr. MacGregor: I confirm that that is the situation in the English channel. The traffic separation scheme, coupled with radar surveillance, has been effective in reducing the level of accidents in the area by more than 85 per cent. It is relevant to have that there because of the

high level of traffic through the Dover straits. Where there is evidence of a contravention of the rules, appropriate follow-up action will be taken by the Department, which may include prosecutions.

Ms. Walley: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is crucial to have a unified approach to maritime safety? Why do we have to keep waiting for disasters such as the Braer and the disasters that we have seen in the English channel? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may be doing with the International Maritime Organisation in respect of the new oil compensation proposal, is it not the case that we may have to wait three years for it to be fully ratified by the eight necessary states? When will he do something about ship safety? When will he increase port state control? When will he make public the results of port state control? When will he do something to save the British merchant fleet, which has the best safety record of all?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not desirable simply to wait for disasters such as the Braer before action is taken. That is why we have been pressing for a considerable time along a wide range of fronts, but one needs the involvement and co-operation of other organisations, and countries around the world, if one is to achieve effective results. I accept that when there is a disaster it gives an extra spur to obtaining that agreement.
We have been tightening port state control, and I should certainly like that to be done very strongly elsewhere. It is producing effective results. I should be happy to give the hon. Lady the figures if she would like to table a question.

Piracy

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking, both nationally and internationally, to combat piracy, in particular in far eastern waters.

Mr. Norris: We are about to publish comprehensive advice to British ship owners and crews on dealing with piracy and armed robbery. Through our embassies and high commissions, we have ensured that littoral states in areas where attacks occur are aware of our concerns. At the request of the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organisation, we shall be sending two experts to work with the IMO piracy working group which is to visit south-east Asia in March.

Mr. Waterson: I welcome my hon. Friend's prompt actions in respect of international piracy, but will he continue to give the highest priority to avoiding incidents such as the attack on the Baltimar Zephir, which resulted in the deaths of the British captain and the chief officer?

Mr. Norris: We have made clear to the Indonesian Government, through our embassy in Jakarta, our very great concern at Captain Bashforth's murder on the Baltimar Zephir and our expectation that their investigation into the incident will be thorough and its results made known fully and speedily.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister recognise that transport piracy comes in many forms? Does he recognise the extreme concern that is felt today by railway pensioners as a result of reports that £4.25 billion——

Madam Speaker: Order. We are talking about piracy on the high seas in far eastern waters. That question is a long way from the mark.

Network SouthEast (Performance)

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the latest performance statistics on the south-western lines division of Network SouthEast.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): For the year ended 29 January 1993, the south-western lines managed to achieve an average performance which was above their targets for 1992. Peak punctuality was 90.9 per cent. and reliability was 99.5 per cent. That is a credit to staff and management.

Mr. Taylor: Would my hon. Friend like to know that there is unrestrained enthusiasm on the 10 stations in my constituency about the prospect of the south-western lines division being franchised? That enthusiasm will be maintained so long as the contract that is let to the franchisee observes better performance standards then those currently obtained and safeguards the commuter lines such as those which pass through my constituency.

Mr. Freeman: We are grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for franchising, particularly the south-western lines. It would be our intention that the private sector franchisees adopted even higher standards of punctuality and reliability to monitor their own performance.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not a fact that the franchising that the Minister and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) welcome will jeopardise branch lines such as those operating from Chessington, Hampton Court, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Esher, the Chertsey branch line, and many other branch lines throughout the Network SouthEast area? Are they not in jeopardy, along with many intermediate stations?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he believes The Guardian newspaper that there is likely to be a threat to a substantial part of the network through franchising. The hon. Gentleman would be wrong: there is nothing in our proposals that jeopardises at all either branch lines or existing main routes.

Ms. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that standards of punctuality on the Network SouthEast route to Hastings are such that British Rail is paying a 5 per cent. reduction? Is he further aware that BR appears to be planning a reduction of seats on the fast trains in the new summer timetable? Will he consult British Rail and alert it to the distress and anger that my commuters feel about the appalling service that they receive from British Rail, which is leading to their approval for the franchising of the British Rail line?

Mr. Freeman: I will certainly reflect my hon. Friend's concerns to the chairman of British Rail, but it is a matter for British Rail at present to determine the services that it provides and the fares for its services. Under the franchising system, the franchising director will require a commitment to a certain level of service, especially in the peak, and he will control fares in Network SouthEast.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies there are in the Crown prosecution service in Greater London.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown prosecution service in Greater London and Surrey has vacancies for 49 lawyers out of a total requirement of 499, and for 100 support staff out of a total requirement of 1,428.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that large number of lawyers means that cases can come to the courts more quickly? Is it not then offensive to many people for the courts to impose ridiculous sentences such as the recent £500 fine which was imposed on a rapist when a damned good hiding might have been more appropriate?

Sir Derek Spencer: I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General expects to receive the papers in that case quite shortly so that he can decide whether the sentence appears to be unduly lenient. He will take his decision on the matter carefully and within the 28 days allowed to him by statute.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Solicitor-General aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and many people in the country at large, find it difficult to understand the sentence—or rather non-sentence—imposed on the person responsible for rape? Is it not important that it should be clearly understood that rape is a vile crime and will be punished severely by the courts and that what was done in that specific case serves no purpose whatever in making it clear that rape is a vile crime?

Sir Derek Spencer: It was precisely to enable my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with the deep sense of misgiving to which the hon. Gentleman referred that we changed the law on this subject and gave the Attorney-General power to refer sentences which appear unduly lenient.

Mr. Burns: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the restructuring of the Crown prosecution service.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): On 1 April 1993, the existing 31 areas of the Crown prosecution service will amalgamate to form 13 new areas. The aim is to improve communication between the areas and headquarters, to lay emphasis on the CPS as a national service, and to enhance the responsibilities of chief Crown prosecutors and their role in management.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Does he agree that it is important that more time be given to experienced lawyers to have a personal involvement in the more serious cases with which they are dealing? Will the changes go any way to enhance that and bring it about?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yes. Two of the advantages of the changes will be, first, that chief Crown prosecutors will be given a bigger role in the central management of the service


as a whole and, secondly, that it will free senior lawyers to do case work on the important and complex cases with which the CPS now deals.

Mr. Fraser: Can the Attorney-General confirm that he will carefully consider facilitating the CPS to argue before the Court of Appeal that the sentence in the Newport Crown court rape case was inadequate? Will he therefore give the Court of Appeal an opportunity to give some guidance about the sentencing of juveniles, as there has been a great deal of concern about the kind of sentences that juveniles have received for serious crimes?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt my decision before I have seen the papers and the factors that impinged on the mind of the learned judge in that case, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look carefully at the matter and that, if the case is referred, it will give the Court of Appeal that opportunity, among others.

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies for the Crown prosecution service there are in the county of Hertfordshire.

The Solicitor-General: The Crown prosecution service currently has a full complement of 48 lawyers in the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire area. It has one vacancy for support staff out of a total requirement of 80.

Mr. Evans: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that all prosecutions are being undermined by punishments not fitting the crime? Does he realise that, apart from the recent rape case, there are many cases of crimes such as joy riding and so on which the nation feels should be punished properly? When will he stop pussyfooting about and get on with it?

The Solicitor-General: We do not pussyfoot around. We refer many cases to the Court of Appeal when we believe that there are grounds to say that the sentence is unduly lenient.

Matrix Churchill

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to receive a report on the outcome of the inquiry on Matrix Churchill.

The Attorney-General: The time scale required to complete the Matrix Churchill inquiry is a matter for Lord Justice Scott. He has made it clear that he wishes to report to the President of the Board of Trade as soon as possible.

Mr. O'Brien: Is it not the case that Lord Justice Scott is currently still reading the papers and has not even spoken to witnesses yet? On that basis, are we not unlikely to have a report before the autumn? When the matter was first raised, the Prime Minister assured the House that he would not allow the inquiry to prevent parliamentary questions from being answered, but are not Ministers in fact refusing to answer legitimate questions to which the British public have a right to answers? If British Ministers have acted improperly, they should not continue in office until the report is completed.

The Attorney-General: There are three questions there. I repeat the assurance that Government Departments will give full assistance to Lord Justice Scott. He has already

received about 30,000 documents. Obviously, they take a good deal of time to read and to assimilate. He then proposes to hear the evidence. I understand from a press release that he proposes to hear the evidence largely in public. It will then be for him to consider his conclusions.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the restructuring of the Crown prosecution service.

The Attorney-General: I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Waterson: I welcome the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend a moment ago. Does he agree that the restructuring will produce a more streamlined and effective service to bring to book both serious and less serious criminals in the rising ride of crime that we face at present?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the review, coupled with the recent improvement in recruitment in the Crown prosecution service, should play a significant part in helping to reduce delays in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not ironic that people who defraud social security to the tune of, say, a couple of hundred pounds a year in most circumstances, are caught and tried while the Crown prosecution service somehow manages to miss the people who make a small fortune out of City fraud? Why is it that the Crown prosecution service allowed Ernest Saunders to get away with most of his sentence? Why did it say that Roger Seelig, who now runs a business, could not continue his trial because of "nervous exhaustion"? Now he is making a big pile. If the Government want to deal with crime, they should start with the big people at the top—their Tory friends.

The Attorney-General: There are two answers to the hon. Gentleman. The first and specific answer is that both the decisions to which he referred, as I should have thought that he realised, were judicial decisions made after careful argument in open court. The second answer is that, in addition to the work done by the Serious Fraud Office, which handles some 50 to 60 large cases a year, the Crown prosecution service handles some 800 to 900 major fraud cases a year. The revised format of the service should also assist in that.

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Attorney-General what was the level of recruitment to the Crown prosecution service in Lancashire in 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General: In 1991 the number of lawyers in post in the Lancashire and Cumbria area of the Crown prosecution service increased from 66 to 67. The number of support staff fell from 90 to 88. In 1992, the number of lawyers increased to 76 and support staff to 113.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the ways in which we can improve the standards of the Crown prosecution service and avoid miscarriages of justice such as the recent Newport Crown court low sentence for rape, which has


caused so much outrage, is to ensure that Crown prosecution service lawyers and other employed barristers are given rights of audience in higher courts, to ensure that they have the standard of training in advocacy to enable them to present cases in the public interest and to the best of their abilities?

The Solicitor-General: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and he will no doubt take into account the principles laid down in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 when he considers whether there is any need for increased rights of audience in the Crown courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

European Community

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of United Kingdom aid is given via the EC; and whether he expects this to change in the next five years.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): In 1991–92 approximately 20 per cent. of British aid to developing countries was provided through the EC. During the period up to 1996, covered in the Chancellor's autumn statement, this proportion is likely to increase, but it is too early to make predictions.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of concern among aid agencies that as the European Community's aid budget increases, there will be a corresponding reduction in the bilateral aid budget, and that since bilateral aid is one of the most effective ways to dispense aid, and the EC is one of the less effective ways, that is a cause for concern?

Mr. Hurd: I have seen the Christian Aid statement to which the hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring. Of course, it is true that part of our aid is multilateral, since it goes through the European Community or the United Nations and its agencies. It is important that multilateral aid should be as effective as we can help to make it, but it all runs together. For example, the programme in Bosnia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is financed partly by the European Community, which is the largest single contributor, and partly by programmes such as our own, but it all goes to the same purpose.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the principle that he laid down in a speech two years ago—that non-humanitarian aid to developing countries will depend on their human rights record? Will he consider the question of non-humanitarian aid to Ghana and Indonesia, as the latter annexed East Timor five years ago and is oppressing the population there?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, we apply that principle and my hon. Friend knows of examples where we have done so, especially in Africa. I have nothing to say about aid to Indonesia, but I was in Ghana recently and think that President Rawlings needs and deserves encouragement, in particular because of his economic policy and his proclaimed intention of opening the door to consultation with the opposition.

Mr. Meacher: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify his policy of cutting the aid budget to Africa

substantially in real terms during the next three years while sharply increasing aid to eastern and central Europe? How does he justify using aid moneys to pay exorbitant consultancy fees to the former Soviet Union this year, and to justify the press release issued by the Overseas Development Administration this week with the headline, "Britain gives £1.5 million to help with Polish mass privatisation"? We have always known that the Tories never favoured aid in the first place, but is that not the most dishonest and disreputable distortion of the aid budget that can possibly be imagined?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member is hopelessly out of date. He cannot have been in eastern Europe lately. The know-how fund has been one of the most successful forms of British aid in recent years. Because of the success of our privatisations, the sort of programme that the Poles and others most desperately require from us is help with theirs —they are after privatisation and not nationalisation.

Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rules governing aid from the European Community are no less stringent in relation to human rights? In that context, what pressure is the Community, as well as Britain, able to exert on the Government of Sudan to ensure that the record on human rights in the south of that country meets the requirements of those rules?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend, and this is something on which we agreed in the Community. Alas, we have felt bound to suspend virtually all our aid to the Sudan, except humanitarian aid, in an effort to show that country that its present record on human rights and good government in general is not acceptable either to us or to our friends.

World Bank

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to take to increase the accountability of United Kingdom representatives to the World bank to the United Kingdom Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The World bank is accountable to its shareholders, including the United Kingdom. The Government are accountable to Parliament for payments made to the bank as part of our overseas aid programme.

Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept that the World bank, through its structural adjustment lending and project lending, has a far greater influence on the policies of many developing countries than our own inadequate bilateral aid programme has? In the light of that and of the recent Wappenhams report, "Inside the World Bank", which showed that more than half its projects are failing in social, environmental and economic terms, is it not a disgrace that the House has virtually no opportunity to discuss what the British Government are doing in the bank and the changes that we may seek to make to it? Would the Minister consider having an annual debate in the House on the policies of the World bank, which should include prior discussion of the main policies that the Government intend to follow in that institution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The purpose of questions and debates in the House of Commons is to make the British Government accountable. The hon. Gentleman can initiate a debate if he wishes. If he wishes to know about actions by the British Government in support of environmental considerations, he need only take note of our opposition to the Narmada project in India, where we have taken an extremely robust line. We have made it clear that there must be great progress by April on environmental and other matters of resettlement if funding is to continue.

Somalia

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British aid workers are currently estimated to be working in Somalia; what is the nature of their work; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Many British and international relief agencies operating in Somalia employ British nationals in a wide range of activities, but it is impossible to estimate their numbers.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British contribution to the relief effort in Somalia is quite outstanding in economic and personnel terms? Will my hon. Friend particularly commend the wonderful work of Sean Devereux and other aid workers? Will the increased numbers of British forces enable some troops to go to Somalia to defend aid workers where appropriate?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Operation Restore Hope, in which the United Kingdom has provided tremendous assistance, has, with the United States initiative, been a terrific success. In terms of financial assistance, we are the third largest bilateral donor to the relief effort in Somalia; more than £40 million worth of relief has been committed in the past 12 months. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the great courage of aid workers in Somalia, including Sean Devereux. I am afraid that only today the deaths of a further five Red Cross employees were announced.

Mr. Mandelson: Did the Minister happen to read the excellent article in Friday's edition of the Financial Times by Mr. Nicholas Hinton, secretary general of the Save the Children Fund? He drew attention to the terrible shortcomings of the United Nations and its agencies in dealing with disasters such as that in Somalia. What steps have the Government taken to co-ordinate with United Nations personnel the much-needed improvement in the

performance of the United Nations and its agencies to overcome the shortcomings which are so glaringly obvious?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman will know, at our instigation a new co-ordinator has been appointed by the United Nations Secretary General and we wish him well. We fully recognise that when the United Nations takes over the operation from the United States that it must be properly funded.

Mr. Lester: Can my hon. Friend give us any idea of our involvement with the United States in planning what will happen when the United States forces withdraw? Many aid agencies, although they have supported the United States intervention in the current situation, are very concerned about what may happen when the forces withdraw.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is essential that a clear plan is drawn up for the handover of responsibility from the coalition forces to the United Nations when the former leave. Discussion about that is currently under way and, as I have said, we are pressing for the United Nations to be fully resourced.

Kenya

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government about aid policies.

Mr. Hurd: I last discussed aid and related issues with President Moi in Nairobi in September. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is in Nairobi today. She is talking to President Moi and others about a number of issues, including aid.

Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind that last month, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the Government said that new balance of payments assistance was being withheld pending political and economic reforms in Kenya, and bearing in mind that the political reforms have taken place as a result of the election, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects the Government to restore new balance of payments assistance?

Mr. Hurd: That will depend largely on how the International Monetary Fund gets on with its review of economic reform.
I was glad to hear what the hon. Lady said about the elections. We support the Commonwealth observers' conclusion, but we hope that President Moi will now reach out a hand to the opposition parties there, try to heal the wounds and re-emphasise his stand in favour of unity and reconciliation.

Public Expenditure Reviews

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Portillo): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about public spending. The Government are committed to a rigorous approach to public spending. We set out in our manifesto for the last election our objective of reducing the share of national income taken by the public sector. As part of that, on 14 May last year, following a discussion on public spending, the Cabinet decided that, once the 1992 public spending round was completed, I should be commissioned as Chief Secretary to conduct a long-term exercise involving in-depth reviews of the public-spending programmes of each Department of State. It was anticipated that the reviews would take much of the period of this parliament to complete.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned the exercise in a speech last week. He noted how easy it was for the state to settle into habits of spending that outlast their purpose and outrun their budgets.
The exercise will require Secretaries of State in each Department to conduct searching studies of their programmes in co-operation with me. The process will start this year with four of the largest programmes. The Departments involved are the Home Office and the Departments of Health, Education and Social Security. The particular aim is to distinguish clearly between the essential costs of high priority spending, which we will continue to fund, and avoidable spending which we cannot afford.
Over the course of the Parliament, we shall be looking at the direction that spending on every programme is taking, and at whether its purpose remains right for the 1990s. We will be seeking to identify areas where better targetting can be achieved, or from which the public sector can withdraw altogether.
These fundamental reviews are not a substitute for the traditional process of public expenditure control; rather, they are intended to reinforce it. Their focus will be on the medium to longer term, although our aim is that their provisional findings should inform the next spending round in the summer.
Making progress towards our fiscal objectives requires us to exercise tight control over public spending. We have an absolute duty to ensure full value for money for the taxpayer from the £250 billion that we spend each year. We shall fulfil that duty.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that this is no ordinary review—that it is quite different from the normal Treasury overview of spending? Although he says that the review was originally intended to last the whole Parliament, will not the provisional findings of the review start hitting spending plans as early as this summer?
On what basis has the right hon. Gentleman chosen the four Departments? What are the criteria? Given that the Departments that he has selected cover our police, our schools, our hospitals and pensions, people will want to know now what options are being contemplated. What is up for grabs in this extraordinary review?
Given that the right hon. Gentleman has stated that there are areas of spending and investment from which the

public sector can withdraw altogether, will he tell us which services, which benefits and which investment plans are under consideration as those from which the public sector can withdraw altogether? Which are "high priority" and may survive; which are only "a priority" and will therefore be doomed?
Who will be consulted before these decisions are taken? What is the process? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the election promises made by the Prime Minister were not only to raise child benefit in line with inflation but to maintain the levels of public services over the whole Parliament?
Is not the real reason for this extraordinary statement nothing to do with the fact that the Government want a genuine and open review of the efficiency of public spending, but rather a panic response to the Government's economic mismanagement—in particular, to the appalling levels of unemployment, costing £9,000 for every unemployed person?
Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be wholly wrong if the British people, who are already suffering in the recession, ended up paying the price in terms of worse policing, worse schools and worse health care—not to mention lost pensions and lost benefits? Should not the price of the recession and economic mismanagement be paid by the Government who caused them?

Mr. Portillo: I fear that the hon. Lady has not adopted the measured tone required by this subject. I will be happy to answer her questions, however.
Is this review quite different from what has gone before? It is a substantial review; it will cover the whole of this Parliament; it will cover every Department. It is different from what happens in every public expenditure round, but it will not be the bitter and vicious cutting exercise that the Labour Government went in for.
The hon. Lady wants to know whether there will be results as early as this summer. There may be some; I am asking for preliminary conclusions. She asked how the Departments were chosen. They are the largest Departments, with the exception of Defence, and Defence underwent a review quite recently, entitled "Options for Change".
The hon. Lady wants to know what will be included and what excluded. She should understand that at this stage we are asking questions. There is no point in asking questions if one knows the answers. As to what will be included and what excluded, perhaps I can use the following words:
We should be prepared to re-examine everything. I've not ruled anything out of court.
Those were the words used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to describe the social justice commission that he has established.
It is extraordinary of the hon. Lady to ask me about manifesto pledges. Yes, they stand. We honoured them in the autumn statement. She is in an extraordinary position. Yesterday, she helped to build up a bonfire of the Labour party's manifesto pledges, which were then set alight by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). The pledge to nationalise water: gone. The pledge to renationalise electricity: gone. The tax rises in the shadow Budget: gone. Yesterday, the Labour party was urged by its leader to think the unthinkable—unfortunately, the hon. Lady was not included among the thinkers.
The party to which the hon. Lady belongs set up a Commission for Social Justice, a no-holds barred review. A party that is afraid to question is a party that is afraid to govern. A party that, in setting up the social justice commission, is willing to ask these questions, but then attacks our party for asking them, is a party that does not know its bottom from its elbow.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this fundamental review will be welcomed not only by Conservative Members but by the financial markets, providing that it produces a sensible medium-term strategy for public expenditure that will take us to the end of the Parliament and beyond? Is he further aware that one of the structural problems of public expenditure, which must be addressed, is to improve the balance between transfer payments, which have, on the whole, been growing too fast and programmed expenditure on investment in such matters as human capital in education and training, which needs to grow faster?

Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend far his well-phrased remarks. I appreciate the ready co-operation of my right hon. Friends in this exercise, some of whom are with me on the Treasury Bench. At the weekend, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said:
I welcome the Prime Minister's review of public expenditure. Of course we have to look into every corner to root out waste and make sure we use taxpayers' money as efficiently as possible. This means taking tough decisions about priorities.
Priorities are exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) spoke about, and I agree with him, as I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The country thinks that the Chief Secretary's main job is to keep public expenditure under review all the time. Therefore, his announcement should not be a great surprise. His review will not be welcomed, but will be looked upon with fear and suspicion by the country, unless he gives certain assurances. He must give the assurance that the review will be public and open and not private; that it will aim at rebuilding Britain's economic prosperity; and, above all, that it will have as its objective a reduction in the appalling gap that has widened between the rich and the poor in Britain, and which has been the most damning legacy of the past 14 Tory years.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is nothing surprising about a Chief Secretary indulging in a review of public spending. We have to do that, and in May we announced that it would have two legs, which are the annual rounds and this further review covering the entire Parliament and each Department in turn.
The Government have an obligation to undertake such a review, because we are responsible for the spending of taxpayers' money, and in sorting out our priorities we must carry out this internal exercise. My right hon. Friends are conducting the exercise and are, of course, free to take what advice they wish from outside. This is basically an exercise for the Government to decide their own priorities. A central point is that the review is directed towards recovery. If the Government took an increasing

share of the nation's resources year by year, it would have a devastating effect on the wealth-creating sector, and we must be concerned about that.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House that he would be negligent if in his important position he did not have public expenditure under review at all times. Will he note that the provision of health care free at the point of delivery is cherished by rich and poor alike, and that any erosion of that principle would be deeply resented throughout the country?

Mr. Portillo: Yes. I think that my hon. Friend well knows, as does the whole House, the real and absolute commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. She would not have endorsed in such generous terms the necessity for this review if she did not strongly believe that money can be saved in the health service and that there are ways to provide better care and more money to patients. That is very much the object of the exercise.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister gave as his excuse for not including the Ministry of Defence the fact that a review of defence had already been undertaken. Have not huge changes been undertaken in the health service following review, and has there not been review after review of education to pretend that something is actually being done about the appalling standards? How on earth can the right hon. Gentleman justify leaving defence out? And is the Treasury to be part of the review, as it is the Treasury that has got us into the mess that has necessitated it?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman must not get upset. I assure him that all Departments will be included in the review, which will take much of a Parliament to complete. We must begin somewhere, and I have begun with four large Departments, taking account of the fact that Defence has recently been reviewed. That is not to rule out the possibility of looking further at what is done within the Ministry of Defence as conditions in the world change. All Departments, including the Treasury, will be reached in due course.

Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the commitment to undertake the review and to do so thoroughly. Is it not odd that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) should seek to ask so many questions when she does not want to have the facts before she seeks the answers? My right hon. Friend must be able to obtain all the information that he needs. Will he make it clear that, although he wishes to see certain results available during the year, the review must be sufficiently thorough to ensure that the results are sustainable in the longer term? In other words, he must not rush it.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. The important thing is to get the right answers over a period, and that will take a long time. However, it is reasonable to ask for some perliminary conclusions around the early summer, so that they can inform the public expenditure survey that begins at that time. The review will go on. I can do no better than to quote the Leader of the Opposition:
I've set up the Social Justice Commission in order to conduct a very wide-ranging review of the whole complex


system of tax, benefits, rights of peoples'…We haven't looked at any of this, almost since Beveridge. There's been no thorough examination, that's what we're going to do.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The Chief Secretary spoke earlier about the state settling into habits of spending. Will he bear in mind the fact that the old-age pension is not a charitable dole from the state? People pay in for their pension all their lives, and most of our constituents, whether they vote Conservative or Labour believe——

Mr. Simon Hughes: Or Liberal Democrat.

Mr. Tony Banks: Not many of them do that.

Ms. Abbott: Most of the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House believe strongly that, when people retire, after having worked all their lives, whether in the marketplace or in the home, they are entitled as of right to a decent pension. They should not have to beg or go asking for charity. That is the principle behind a universal pension. The Chief Secretary tampers with the principle of a universal pension at his peril.

Mr. Portillo: I have never said that I would tamper with the universal pension. The person who has said it is the Leader of the Opposition. He said:
We must be prepared to examine in an open-minded way some of the fundamental features of our approach. What is the right balance between universal and selective benefits?
The hon. Lady's argument is not with me but with those on her own Front Bench.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that throwing resources at a problem is not always the answer? Sometimes the answer is good management and sometimes it is good work practice. We are not talking about the Government's money, because the Government do not have any. It is the taxpayers' money, and we are the custodians of it and have to use it wisely. There is nothing wrong with selective benefits as long as they are targeted on those in need. What is wrong with that? The Opposition will always cry, "Means testing." They mean, "Don't let's get it to those in need."

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. Only a fool could possibly believe that, in £250 billion-worth of public spending, every penny is as well spent as it could be. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said the other day:
we cannot tolerate a drugs bill that is rising at around 12 per cent. per year, four times the rate of inflation, especially when staff are being asked to settle for no more than 1·5 per cent.
We need to examine such issues, and I cannot understand why the Opposition are opposed to such questions being put.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: When the Chief Secretary is looking at education, will he consider the effects that some of the so-called reforms have had? Is he aware that a two-tier system is developing in many of our constituencies? When he is considering the targeting of money, will he reflect on the £225,000 in grants that went

to one opted-out school in Halifax, while the other 109 schools had to share £200,000? Is that the fair education in which he is supposed to believe?

Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and his predecessors are warmly to be congratulated on moving the numbers of those in higher education from one in eight to one in four, and on planning over the next three years a 25 per cent. increase in those who will receive further education. The initiative that the Government have taken towards the development of grant-maintained schools has been enormously important in providing schools with pride and independence as well as ensuring value for money.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend be willing to extend this excellent review to cover agriculture, especially when we observe that last month the cereal mountains broke all established records, despite the fact that we are spending a fortune on set-aside? Will the Government be willing to consider postponing the implementation of the Maastricht treaty, bearing in mind the fact that the treaty will cost the taxpayer a huge sum on top of the £2·6 billion net that we are paying this year?

Mr. Portillo: There are no plans to postpone consideration of the Maastricht Bill. I can assure my hon. Friend that the consideration of agriculture will be reached in due course. Much of the spending on agriculture derives directly from commitments under the European Community's common agricultural policy. For that reason, it is important that we ensure that we use money to best possible value in all the areas in which we have discretion, and that we bring pressure upon our European Community partners to ensure that the CAP is reformed and improved so as to provide better value for taxpayers across Europe.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that nothing is sacrosanct in this review? Are we to understand that even the amounts and rules of entitlement for the attendance allowance, the mobility allowance and other disability benefits will be included in the review? If so, how much consultation will the right hon. Gentleman be having with the organisations of and for disabled people?

Mr. Portillo: I quoted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who said that nothing could be ruled out. That is a sensible basis on which to embark on conducting a review—otherwise we omit things and we find that we are driven down alleys, with the result that extremely important matters are excluded. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had it absolutely right. It would be improper of any Opposition Member to seek to start scare stories on the back of the review, especially when the Labour party is pledged to examine things fundamentally.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree with me that, as a society, we might have moved a little too far from the old-fashioned virtues of looking after our families and observing our own responsibilities? Does he agree also that it is essential that we do not continue to tax the business community, as only it can provide the jobs that will eventually provide an improvement in incomes for all those who need it?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I believe that the original objectives of the social security system were to encourage people into independence—in other words, to leave dependency. That is very much in our minds. It seems from the tone that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition took that it is very much in his mind too. My hon. Friend does well to remind us of that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: A small amount of Home Office money is spent on encouraging the basic democratic right of electoral registration. Will the Government ensure that, following the review, expenditure on electoral registration is increased, so that this democratic right is encouraged and developed? Or is it the case that the only chance that the Conservative party has at the next general election is to be gained by not spending anything on electoral registration, so that as few people as possible are on the register?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is writing a bidding letter at the beginning of a public expenditure survey. I do not think that there is much prospect of him being in government and in a position to do that. I do not think either that this is the time for totting up a list of the things on which we would like to spend more. The review that I am announcing is designed carefully to examine the effectiveness of the way in which we spend the money to which we are already committed over the public expenditure survey period of the next three years and beyond.

Mr. Barry Porter: I welcome this statement, but observe that it is about time, too. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no sacred cows in this review? The main objection to the community charge was that a duke paid as much as a dustman. It always struck me as illogical that the converse was not equally open to objection—that the duke receives as much as the dustman: no sacred cows, if you please.

Mr. Portillo: I think that all my hon. Friends are joining me in wishing to ensure that the money that is allocated is spent effectively. As the Government are spending billions, one must conduct a pretty thorough review and get clown to the nitty-gritty of the way in which money is spent, in order to ensure that it is spent as effectively as possible. My hon. Friend is right to think that nothing should be ruled out from the scrutiny of value for money and the effectiveness of delivery.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the budget of the local authority in Coventry has been cut by about £180 million in the past 10 years? Is it not time that he stopped rolling back the welfare state and conducted a proper review to bolster the welfare state and local government in particular?

Mr. Portillo: My memory from my time as Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is that local government was getting not less from year to year but more. Local government is facing challenges about how it will meet the targets and budgets that are laid down in the standard spending assessments and capping limits. Both

central and local government should be willing to organise their priorities and take tough decisions, because at present we have limited resources and the economy has not been growing. We have to be sensible and responsible about how we spend taxpayers' money.

Sir Anthony Grant: I welcome tight control of public expenditure, but will my right hon. Friend disregard what the Leader of the Opposition said about pensions—he does not know what he is talking about anyway—and please bear in mind the fact that an increasing number of elderly people have based their declining years, the last few years of their lives, on the present figures? They are not in a position to make drastic changes at this stage of their lives, and they do not expect to be let down. Will he please bear that in mind in the review?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend does well to caution me about quoting the Leader of the Opposition too much. I was stimulated to do so by the responses of those on the Labour Benches. We must adhere to our important manifesto commitments to pensioners. People make provision years in advance for their retirement—I do not wish to be deprived of any contribution that I have made to my pension—so these are important issues. I stress that we are looking at medium and longer-term reviews. At some time, however, somebody must consider the way in which public spending is developing, and be willing to take serious decisions about that.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister recall that 5 million people were bribed by the Government to desert the certainty of the state pension scheme for the lottery of personal pensions? Many of those people—probably 1 million will lose unless somebody tells them they should go back into the state scheme. The Government are not telling them, and certainly the pensions industry is not doing so. Millions of people see national insurance as a future that offers certainty and safety, but the Government are now offering them a future that holds nothing but fear and insecurity.

Mr. Portillo: The previous Labour Government were involved in an extreme important and helpful pensions reform—the establishment of supplementary pensions. That has been carried forward by the Government to offer people choice. People will have a supplementary pension whether they are contracted into the state scheme or contracted out into personal or occupational schemes. It is extremely important that people make provision for their retirement over and above the state pension. We are obliged by our manifesto to make attractive to all ages the contracting-out route, but people can remain part of SERPS if they so choose.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: We must now move on. [Interruption.] Order. I am not bound to give my reasons for moving on, but let me make two comments. First, the House must know that we are bound to return to these issues at a later date. Secondly, we have before us an important debate on the Principality.

Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 412), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the next motion on the Order Paper:
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1993–94, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State has set out the basis on which the debate is to be conducted. Is it true that this afternoon, in answer to a written question, he will publish the costs of local government reform? If so, does he not think that we should have that information, so that we know the full parameters of the debate?

Mr. Hunt: I anticipate today sending to the local authority associations and publishing the Touche Ross report on the transitional costs of local government reform but that is not a matter to be debated today. There will be an opportunity to debate the report. I am not responsible for the business of the House, but I shall do my best and use my best endeavours to ensure that there is proper opportunity to discuss the report.
Today we are dealing with the local government finance report, which contains my decisions on the local government revenue settlement for 1993–94. The relevant notional amounts report sets out the amounts in lieu of budgets for 1992–93 which I propose to use in measuring budget increases in 1993–94 for the purpose of applying the provisional capping criteria which I announced to the House on 14 December. It may be convenient for the House if I deal first with the settlement proposals.
As the report states, I propose to set the total standard spending, or TSS, for the next financial year 1993–94 at £2,599.8 million. That includes the £35.9 million in additional resources which has already been announced for the new responsibilities that local authorities will assume for care in the community from 1 April 1993.

Mr. Barry Jones: Many of us believe that the right hon. Gentleman has given our councils a very poor deal over care in the community. Community care involves some of the most vulnerable in our society, not least the elderly and the disabled. There is concern in my constituency about services in the new financial year at the Melrose centre. Is he prepared to visit the centre, which does magnificent work but which will suffer serious cuts in the new financial year unless he can give the county a better deal than he is to announce today?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member will agree that it is for the local authority to determine its priorities. I have just announced confirmation of an allocation of £35·9 million for those additional responsibilities. As I recall, Clwyd county council will receive £6·6 million out of that £35·9 million. At the end of the day, it must be for the local authority to determine its priorities. I shall come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I shall ensure that the figure for Clwyd county council is checked, although I believe it to be £6·6 million.
In addition to the £35·9 million is a further £1·6 million in resources in respect of changes to the independent living fund arrangements. Those additions to spending are fully funded by central Government through aggregate external finance or AEF.
The TSS for 1993–94 also takes account of the transfer of responsibilities for further and residual higher education services to the Welsh funding councils and of the phased transfer of school inspection functions to the Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector (Wales), all from 1 April this year. The TSS represents a 3·1 per cent. increase on the level for 1992–93 when allowance is made for the education-related functional adjustments. The increase is slightly higher—3·5 per cent.—when the additional community care resources are taken into account.
I propose to set aggregate external finance for 1993–94 at £2,344·2 million. That is an increase of 1·7 per cent. on the level of AEF for 1992–93, again after allowing for education-related functional adjustments. The level of increase is slightly higher when the additional community care resources are taken into account. The AEF package comprises, as the House may recall, three elements, including revenue support grant and distributable non-domestic rates. The RSG is £1,669·3 million, and distributable non-domestic rates amount to £470·2 million. There are specific and supplementary grants of £204·7 million. The Welsh non-domestic rate poundage for 1993–94 will increase by 3·5 per cent. in line with inflation at the appropriate time to 44p.
In setting AEF for the coming year, I have had very much in mind the point made to me by the local authority associations—that the proportion of revenue that local authorities in Wales can raise from local taxation should be increased. The lower level of increase in AEF relative to that for TSS means that local authorities should, on average, raise 10 per cent. of their income from the council tax, which is an increase of about 1·3 per cent. on last year. My plans will mean that 90 per cent. of all local authority revenue expenditure in Wales will be funded by central Government support.
Those figures will enable local authorities to spend just over £900 for every man, woman and child in Wales. I shall provide through Government support more than £810 towards that expenditure of £900. I believe that that is welcome news for the people of Wales, and it should ensure that council tax bills are kept to reasonable levels for the coming year.
I have received many representations on my settlement proposals, and I have chaired two meetings of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, or WCCLGF. At those meetings settlement matters have been discussed in detail. I am the first to acknowledge that the settlement for 1993–94 is not easy, and that local authorities will face some difficult decisions in determining their spending plans for next year. I wanted to place that point firmly on the record, because I have often recognised, individually and collectively with the local authorities concerned, that local government will face some difficult decisions.
Local government is not alone in that regard. Central Government, businesses large and small and individuals all face tough decisions. We cannot spend what we cannot afford, and that is particularly the case for central and local government, as they can spend only at the expense of the taxpayers they serve.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State believe that the fact that village schools all over rural Wales now face the real threat of closure, and that local authorities are now having to take very hard decisions is an acceptable price to pay for Government policy? Does he also believe that it is right that, as a result of Government policy, care in the community for some elderly people means care in a community very distant from their own?

Mr. Hunt: Local authorities must determine their priorities. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is, in reality, talking about TSS. The overall level of TSS in Powys has risen by 21 per cent. since 1990–91. The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that that is the background to the current settlement. The 21 per cent. increase is at the bottom end of the range of increases, which average 25 per cent. over the past two financial years, and although the 21 per cent. increase appears to be a good figure, I recognise that it nevertheless presents Powys county council with some difficult decisions.
However, at the end of the day, the local authority must determine how it will deal with those difficult decisions. I will not seek to override any decisions that are taken, because that is a matter for Powys county council.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: I will give way in a moment.
The local authority will appreciate, as will the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, that the restraint of public revenue expenditure must be of paramount importance as we build for the future. If we are to stimulate investment and ensure a soundly based economic recovery that will bring with it better long-term prospects for jobs and services, we must restrain public sector expenditure. Pay restraint is a key component in holding down the level of spending; that is why I wanted to stress once more that my settlement plans are based on the assumption——

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: I will give way in a moment, after I have responded to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).
My settlement plans are based on the public sector pay restraint assumptions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement on 12 November. I urge local government to keep pay increases within the zero to 1.5 per cent. limits set out in the autumn statement, because excessive pay increases can be met only at the expense of jobs and services. Only by exercising restraint now will we be able to benefit from economic recovery.

Mr. Ainger: In response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the Secretary of State referred to the fact that Powys had received a 21 per cent. increase in its SSAs over two years. I am sure that the Secretary of State will tell me that Dyfed received a 25 per cent. increase in its SSAs over the past two years. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there was not a 25 per cent. increase in services? The increase was intended simply

to cover the pay settlements for the fire brigade, police and teachers, all of which had been set by central Government, not local government?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that Dyfed has received 25 per cent. increase in total standard spending over the past two years. However, he is wrong about the reason for that increase. There has been a substantial increase in total standard spending—the total figure that is allocated—which includes several components in addition to pay.
It is not possible to close a school in the public sector without the local people exercising the right to approach the Secretary of State. Against that background, I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke will recognise that I cannot intervene in respect of individual spending decisions. However, I am the ultimate court of appeal with regard to decisions of that nature.

Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State is referring to restraint in public revenue expenditure. Is he aware that the results of the settlement and the cuts in revenue expenditure have meant the virtual halting of capital expenditure in many of our counties? I refer, for example, to expenditure on new roads and refurbishing schools, improvements in respect of pavements and street lighting —the very capital expenditure which could create jobs and which I thought was meant to be the publicly led capital growth that the Secretary of State is after.

Mr. Hunt: Let me deal with that point straight away. On capital spending, the amount available for basic credit approvals has reduced by £8·9 million, but that is to take account of the transfer of further education institutions. However, overall Government support for all local authority capital expenditure is up by 4 per cent. on 1992–93 to £484 million. That is a real-terms increase of £5.7 million. It allows for gross spending of £620 million, which is a real-terms increase of £45 million. Given the ability to utilise in full capital receipts realised during 1993, and the availability of——

Mr. Rowlands: rose——

Mr. Hunt: If I may make this point to the hon. Gentleman, there are also additional resources available to cover expenditure to be reimbursed by grants from the European regional development fund, so I expect all authorities to be able to proceed with their planned capital programmes. I make that point absolutely clearly.

Mr. Rowlands: If Mid Glamorgan is an example to go by, fear of capping has caused a cut in revenue expenditure. The council is now so scared of spending that it has cut almost every new capital expenditure programme. The revenue consequences of capital expenditure are now preventing capital expenditure from going ahead.

Mr. Hunt: I do not want to intervene to try to second-guess what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Mid Glamorgan. It is for Mid Glamorgan to reach those decisions. Again, it will reach them against the background of one of the highest increases in total standard spending over the past two years. In the case of Mid Glamorgan, that is an increase of 26 per cent. in TSS. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the figures.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept the truth behind the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? The right hon. Gentleman cannot avoid responsibility, because his settlement and his capping regime are putting county councils in such a position that they have no alternative but to cut their capital programmes. Why does he not accept that that is an inevitable consequence of the settlement and the capping regime that he has introduced?

Mr. Hunt: The figures that I have used are the figures. I see that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) does not dispute them. They make it possible, I believe, for local authorities to maintain their capital programmes. That is my judgment. I look forward to seeing what happens in reality, but I believe that, in so far as local——

Mr. Rowlands: Are we discussing reality?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, we are discussing reality. As the year progresses, we shall see capital programmes being maintained. Certainly the figures show that they can be.
Education has been mentioned. If one looks back over the past three years in Wales, one sees an underspend on the capital education spending programme. Already this year, provision for education capital spending is £63 million. The latest forecast is £59·8 million gross. In the financial year 1991–92, provision was £66·6 million. The actual spending was £56·4 million. There was a 15·3 per cent. underspend. I very much hope that those capital programmes to which I attach high priority are also regarded as a priority by the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am reluctant to intervene a second time, but I am trying to be helpful. If the Secretary of State realises the importance of the capital programme, if what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said comes about, and if it transpires in April, May and June that the counties must entirely disband their capital programmes, will he undertake to review the settlement at that time?

Mr. Hunt: I see that the hon. Gentleman still does not challenge the figures. The figures are there. They enable local authorities to attach a high priority to capital spending. What I am saying is that I hope that local authorities will attach a high priority to capital spending. Last week, I was able to announce a record capital spending programme for the Welsh Office. I have already mentioned the facility afforded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the utilisation of receipts this year. The mechanism is there for capital programmes to be maintained, and I hope that they will be maintained.

Mr. Paul Murphy: rose——

Mr. Hunt: May I proceed for a moment? I am anxious that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) gets an opportunity to deliver his speech. Of course, the hon. Member may still be in the process of constructing it. He has just received it, so I shall give way.

Mr. Murphy: The Secretary of State talks about the capital programme for local authorities. How does he square his statement with the fact that there has been an 18 per cent. reduction in capital spending for districts in 1993, which is a total of £22 million?

Mr. Hunt: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the correct figures. Government support for local authority capital expenditure is an 18·5 per cent. increase on 1992–93. The hon. Member for Torfaen may have seized upon the wrong 18 per cent. The figures are absolutely correct. As I pointed out, the settlements for this year and last year increased total standard spending by 25 per cent. That is a substantial increase. With the increase of 3·1 per cent. for next year, total standard spending will have increased by almost 29 per cent. since 1990–91.
Many of the representations I have received have been more about the disparity in the levels of increase between county councils and district councils. The average increase in next year's standard spending assessments for district authorities is 9·8 per cent. For county authorities, it is 1·6 per cent., after taking account of the further education adjustments. Additional community care resources raise the level of the county increase to 3·6 per cent. The Assembly of Welsh Counties and individual county authorities have expressed considerable disquiet at the comparatively low level of increase in county resources. We discussed the matter at the meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 12 January.
The principles underlying the allocation of total resources between the county and district authority tiers have been the subject of long-standing agreement between the local authority associations. The methodology has remained virtually unchanged since the early 1980s. The starting point is the aggregate level of expenditure by each tier for the financial year three years preceding the settlement. For 1993–94, the base year for the tier share calculation is 1990–91.
The agreement of the authorities that the usual methodology should be used for 1993–94 was sought in September 1992. Early agreement is needed, because the tier share calculation cannot be undertaken until relatively late in the settlement timetable. When the result of the exercise for the coming financial year was known in December, the Assembly of Welsh Counties asked that I reconsider the arrangements. I said that I was perfectly prepared to so if both associations—the counties and the districts—could agree on proposals for change. I was told that, sadly, it was not possible for agreement to be reached.
I did not consider it appropriate that I should intervene to break with precedent and prescribe the allocation between tiers, especially at such a late stage. I suggested to both associations that we should make an early start on the methodology for 1994–95, and they have agreed.
The tier share arrangements, together with the arrangement for distributing resources between individual authorities within the tiers, show that local government has an active and positive role to play in the annual settlement in Wales. As the House will know, it is a much more direct role than is played in England. I am proud of the fact that we can reach agreement on many of these matters with local authorities. It is a role which I am anxious to maintain.
Neither I nor any of my predecessors has seen fit to intervene in the tier share arrangements. If I had tried to rewrite the arrangements on this occasion without the agreement of both the associations, it would have been contrary to the spirit of co-operation and partnership which we have built up over many years.
The SSAs for 1993–94 set out in the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) have been determined, as in years


past, in accordance with the distribution methodology that has been agreed with the associations through the consultative council. I would like to pay tribute to the associations for its work in achieving fully agreed conclusions. The work load has been particularly onerous this year because of the need to consider the best means of distributing the additional resources for care in the community.
My Department, county councils and the health service in Wales have worked together closely in making the necessary plans for implementing the new care in the community arrangements. I gave careful consideration to the need for the Secretary of State to make special arrangements for the distribution of the new community care resources; but, in view of the close working relationships that have been built up and the arrangements that we are making for monitoring progress on implementation, I decided not to introduce special grant arrangement in Wales.
With the agreement of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the resources are being distributed through the settlement but with the amounts for each county authority clearly identified, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I shall keep the position under review to ensure that the resources are used for their intended purposes.
The functional changes for 1993–94 to which I have referred this afternoon, and the changes to financial arrangements arising from the Local Government Finance Act 1992, mean that it is not possible—for capping purposes—to make a direct comparison between budgets set by local authorities in 1992–93 and budgets set for 1993–94. That is why I have exercised my statutory powers to specify for each authority in Wales a base position, known as a relevant notional amount, to measure budget increases for the purposes of applying capping principles. The relevant notional amount that I propose to specify for each local authority in Wales is set out in the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales).
I announced details of provisional notional amounts together with my provisional capping principles on 14 December. Local authorities were invited to make representations on their provisional notional amount figure by 19 January. Seven authorities responded with requests for amendments. I have given careful consideration to these representations and made revisions to the provisional figures, for six authorities—four in respect of county, further and higher education expenditure and two in respect of district collection fund interest expenditure.
Counties have until 28 February and district authorities have until 11 March to finalise their budgets for 1993–94. I urge them, notwithstanding the difficulties that some will face, to budget prudently and in line with my plans. My provisional capping principles will assist authorities in this task. In recent years, Welsh authorities have, on the whole, budgeted responsibly; although some have set their budgets at a higher level than I would wish. I have not considered it necessary to use my capping powers to date and I hope that I will not need to have recourse to them in 1993–94.
My settlement plans should mean that all local taxpayers in Wales receive reasonable council tax bills in the next financial year. Bills will vary depending on the budget decisions of individual authorities and the valuation band of the property in question. For the

purposes of distributing revenue support grant, as hon. Members will see from the report, I have identified a council tax figure for council tax spending for each property band.
The figure for band C properties is £231—£35 less than the average community charge for two adults in 1992–93, even after relief through the community charge reduction scheme is taken into account. What is perhaps even more important is that it is less than the average domestic rates bill in Wales was in 1989–90. Two thirds of properties in Wales fall in band C or the lower A and B bands. In view of that, I announced on 26 November that I considered transitional arrangements for the introduction of the council tax to be inappropriate.
My decision has been welcomed by the local authority associations. Individual council tax payers will benefit from a range of discounts. For example, single adult households will benefit from a 25 per cent. discount; those on income support will pay no council tax; and those on low incomes will receive council tax benefit on a sliding scale. Benefits for people on low incomes, including income support claimants, is estimated at more than £40 million in 1993–94.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: In the standard spending assessment, is the Secretary of State making allowances for district councils to be reimbursed for the tremendous increase in the take-up of housing benefit and rent allowance schemes? For example, last year Swansea council assisted 5,235 of its people with rent allowances, and the net cost to the council and community charge payers—after the Government subsidy—was £703,000 extra. Is he going to help such councils in view of those difficulties?

Mr. Hunt: Allowance was made at the outset, and I have no plans to change the formulae, which are well understood by local authority associations. I have some information, if I might move on to collection of the community charge.
I am most encouraged by the latest information supplied by local authorities on collection of the community charge. I am pleased to announce that they estimate a surplus of £16 million in their collection funds at 31 March 1993. It is clear that districts will collect more than 100 per cent. of the community charge that they budgeted to collect at the start of the financial year— [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) might have said that the poll tax was therefore a good idea after all—but perhaps he did not.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Just to put the record straight, I said that the Secretary of State used the same advocacy for the poll tax when he promoted that as a local government Minister. I hope that he is more correct about this form of local government finance than he was about the poll tax.

Mr. Hunt: The £16 million is a real figure, and I can tell the council tax payers of Wales that it will feed straight through to reduced council tax bills next year. For a tax payer in a band C property, that will mean on average a council tax £15 less than it would have been, and £17 less for those in band D properties. That is thanks to the diligence and efficiency of the authorities in collecting the community charge.
I will give careful consideration to the budget set by each local authority for 1993–94. In doing so, I will refer to my provisional capping criteria. In making my decisions on whether to cap individual authorities, I will take into account all relevant considerations. However, local authorities should not doubt my resolve to protect local taxpayers from unreasonable council tax burdens through use of my capping powers if that should prove necessary.
The settlement for 1993–94 provides Welsh authorities with a realistic level of funding in the current economic situation and should achieve reasonable council tax levels for the people of Wales. I commend the report to the House.

Mr. Ron Davies: First, I thank the Secretary of State for the co-operation he showed to the Opposition, who have sought to ensure that these debates are held at a reasonable hour. The allocation of the full three hours is appreciated.
I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity of his first appearance at the Dispatch Box since the memorable day at Cardiff on Saturday to express his congratulations to the Welsh rugby team. I must speculate that he was perhaps less enthusiastic about the result than my hon. Friends.

Mr. David Hunt: I always believe that actions speak louder than words. I thought the hon. Gentleman would have noticed the Welsh schools rugby union tie and the Welsh rugby union emblem that I am wearing. I could not have been more delighted by that result and I join him in paying tribute to a magnificent match and a tremendous Welsh victory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I thought that they were worn but not mentioned in respect for the Chair.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that there will be an opportunity for further discussion on that match, but not today.
I wonder what world the Secretary of State lives in, because his speech gave the impression that the settlement is a model one—generous even, and widely accepted in Wales. He talked about the consultations that he had and claimed that various increases in expenditure are available now. He implied that the settlement is reasonable, that it had been carefully worked out and that it was supported by a broad consensus. The reality is quite different.
The settlement is flawed both in its methodology and in the overall level of money available. The reality is that all Welsh local authorities have united in opposition to it. It is clearly inadequate, because it will not be able to guarantee the retention of vital public services. At a conservative estimate, it will destroy about 2,500 jobs in the public sector in Wales.
The settlement represents another step in the remorseless undermining of the financial base on which local democracy stands. It has come from a Secretary of State who gave us the poll tax and justified it by saying that he wanted to see local government made more accountable. On 9 March 1990, he said of the poll tax:
The whole purpose of the community charge is to make councils accountable to their electors.

What accountability is there now, when all local government spending and the provision of more than 90 per cent. of local expenditure is determined by one man? There is nothing accountable, democratic or local about that.
The Secretary of State, whose Government have no mandate in Wales, who does not represent a Welsh constituency and who has been rejected by the people of Wales at the ballot box, has reached the level of taking even more powers to himself in defiance of public opinion and in the teeth of opposition from Welsh local authorities. In doing so, he has imposed, for the first time, capping limits on democratically elected public bodies. That decision reverses his previous principles. He has set those limits to ensure that his will is imposed, not on behalf of the people of Wales, but on behalf of a Tory Government whose financial and economic policies have brought the country to the brink of ruin.
Let the Secretary of State be in no doubt about the weight of feeling against the settlement among Welsh local authorities. He has claimed that additional resources are available, but that is not true. There has been an overall increase of 4·6 per cent.—£115 million—in the standard spending assessment, but the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that that includes £37·5 million to meet the new statutory responsibilities relating to care in the community. With that figure removed, we are left with 3·1 per cent. over the 1992–93 standard spending assessment —but last year's provision was itself inadequate and far removed from what local authorities actually spent on delivering services.
When compared with budget figures—that is, what was actually spent—the increase is down to 0·2 per cent. When the revised figure is compared with the agreed estimate of both Welsh local authority associations of what is required to meet inflation costs directly incurred, and additional responsibilities, some measure of the severity of the settlement can be seen.
The local authority requirement was for a further £130 million. That represents the lowest provision—or under-provision—in the reports. In particular, £70 million is required to meet the balance of pay awards, previously agreed in 1992 and effective only recently in the case of police and fire services. Implementation of the Children Act 1989, the national curriculum and waste management are all new responsibilities, but have not been allocated commensurate new resources.

Mr. Rod Richards: The hon. Gentleman clearly stated that he was against capping local government expenditure. How would he like local government expenditure to be controlled—or would he simply give local authorities a free hand?

Mr. Davies: Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the Secretary of State that we are debating the Secretary of State's proposals for financing local government. If the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Secretary of State to arrange another debate—here or upstairs in Committee; in Westminster or in Cardiff—I shall be happy to discuss the subject. I am prepared to discuss it anywhere, any time, any place. Today, however, we are debating the Secretary of State's proposals, and his under-financing of Welsh local authorities. I am not going to let the right hon. Gentleman off the hook. [Interruption.]—We are discussing a capping report and


Labour Members oppose that capping. If the Secretary of State or the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who is sitting behind him, wants suggestions about how local government finance should be arranged, I shall be happy to respond in debate. [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State can shout at me from a sedentary position as much as he likes. Let me make it clear to him that he can have a debate if he wants it, but he will have to find the time for it. Now is not the time.
The Secretary of State must explain why every major central Government Department has been given an increase of over 3·1 per cent..—and why his Department has been given an increase of 8·7 per cent.—over planned provision for 1992–93. Local government, which is providing services directly, faces severe cuts in real terms. While quangos multiply and flourish, elected authorities —responsible and accountable to the public, with high standards of financial propriety ensured through internal and external audit and full public scrutiny—are being denied essential resources.
Over the past decade, Wales has suffered a decline relative to the United Kingdom as a whole and to Europe. The economic recession places further burdens on local authorities—housing the homeless, providing support for the unemployed and disadvantaged and caring for the poor and elderly. If we emerge from the slump, it will be due in no small measure to public expenditure on infrastructure—on new roads and development programmes—to investment in education and training and to the provision of jobs in the building of new homes, schools and roads and the improvement of the environment. Both to deal with the casualties of recession and to escape the recession, we need public sector-led growth, but, instead of growth, we have been given a programme that will accelerate decline.
Let us examine the choices with which Welsh authorities have been faced. One of the grimmest local government documents that I have ever seen is Mid Glamorgan's report entitled "1993–1994 proposals for a reduction in services". I do not want to go into all the details, but let us consider the choices facing Mid Glamorgan's elected representatives. They have been told to cut £5·5 million from its education budget, over £1 million from highways expenditure and over £1 million from social services—a total of £15 million. That presents the authority with unacceptable choices. Such cuts undermine and destroy the present fabric and the future care of our communities.
I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not answer the question put to him very directly by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). The right hon. Gentleman must accept that the tightness of the provision being made for Mid Glamorgan, together with the threat of capping, confront the authority with a grim choice. Either it maintains its capital budget or it must sack teachers. It is not surprising that an authority faced with such an unenviable choice wants to hold on to what it has, and decides not to sack teachers.
The Secretary of State should understand the inevitable consequence of the provision that he has made—that a capital programme will not be honoured. I hope that he finally appreciates that. I hope that, when he returns to the Welsh Office, he will talk to Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and all the other counties that face the grim choice and the loss of their capital programmes.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a report from Mid Glamorgan, which he has clearly studied in some detail. Perhaps he can tell us whether the report makes any reference to the number of surplus school places in Mid Glamorgan.

Mr. Davies: I am happy to debate surplus school places. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the way in which to get rid of them is not to do what was done in the case of Gwent: when Gwent tried to get rid of surplus school places, Cwncarn secondary school—which was destined for closure if that happened—was bribed to opt out of the public sector, to ensure its maintenance. I have done my homework in the case of Mid Glamorgan; I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has done his in the case of Powys.

Mr. Richards: Answer the question.

Mr. Davies: I have given a very clear answer.
Let me make clear to Conservative Members the damage that they will be doing, not only to the structures of local government—although that is bad enough—but to families, if they vote in favour of the settlement. Let me read a letter, addressed to the Secretary of State, from a resident of Milford Haven—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger):
I am writing to you as a result of discovering last week that Dyfed Education Authority has been forced to stop all discretionary grants for 1993–94. When I 'phoned my local Education Office to enquire about grants for both my daughters they told me that I could apply for a grant for my elder daughter because she has a place at University. My second daughter has always had a poor deal educationally. She is dyslexic and has had only the most minimal help and that only in recent years … Despite this, being a hardworking girl, she took the courageous decision to return to school, for this year, to try and improve her results. Her plan was to take the B tee …. This would give her the opportunity, at a later date to be considered for teacher training. Now that the grants have been stopped there is no chance of that. What do you suggest I tell her? 'Sorry, Louise, I know you're only seventeen but you are on the scrap heap'. I have spent the last fourteen years bringing up my daughters alone. I have had only the minimum of help from government sources. I have taught both children that if you work hard you'll succeed in the end. Now your policies show them that what I have taught them is a cruel joke. The present situation in the country shows John Major's announcements about equal opportunity for all to be a myth…Please don't insult me by blaming our local authority. They have no real choices because of things like capping. The continual 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', simply can't go on. It is destroying lives in all parts of society. I see it every day in my job as district nurse. More and more of my time is spent on trying to help people overcome social problems that are affecting their health. I will end by saying that I despair for all us as long as this is allowed to continue.
That was written to the Secretary of State for Wales and copied to the Secretary of State for Education and to the Prime Minister. As of last Friday, neither the Secretary of State for Wales nor the Secretary of State for Education nor the Prime Minister had had the courtesy to respond to the letter.
What price, then, the citizens charter? What price the parents charter or the students charter? Throughout the counties of Wales the pattern is repeated: £12 million of cuts in Clwyd threatening 300 teachers' jobs, and more than £3 million in Gwynedd. The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) will vote for that tonight. In South Glamorgan and Gwent, £8 million and £11.5 million respectively are to be cut, with service cuts across


the board. The hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) will vote for that tonight. In Powys, there will be more than £3 million-worth of cuts in education, highways, social services and fire services. And there is to be the tragic loss of Storey Arms because of the cuts in South Glamorgan's budget. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor will vote for that tonight.

Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way he is nailing responsibility to its rightful place—the door of the Welsh Office. People throughout South Glamorgan are appalled by the way in which the Secretary of State has forced our county to make cuts, in music, in choirs and bands and orchestras, in outdoor pursuits and in local youth services. Those cuts will leave many hands idle. Is not it appalling that the quality of life in our communities is threatened by the decisions of the Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes his own compelling case and I am grateful for his support.
I have not yet mentioned the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who is sitting with a quizzical look on his face—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are making some helpful suggestions to assist the hon. Gentleman with his decision making. I suggest that he does as he always does when he has a crisis of conscience —what the Whips tell him to do.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the position of Storey Arms. He will know that in my constituency there are 10 such outdoor education centres run by county councils, some of them Welsh. The only county council threatening to sack people is the Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council, which is drastically reducing the budget for Storey Arms and engaging in a political stunt by trying to direct the blame for that towards the Secretary of State, rather than where it should go under political accountability—to the people who made the decision in the first place.

Mr. Davies: I have heard that argument before, so I took the trouble to discuss it with the treasurer of South Glamorgan and the chairmen of the finance committee and the education department. I was told that the choice facing South Glamorgan is to comply with its statutory duties and make cuts of this nature or to put itself in breach of the law by cutting back on its statutory provision.
I understand the great difficulty that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor faces. He may have 10 such facilities in his constituency, but by voting for these reports tonight, he will ensure that there are nine. If there are a succession of such reports he will find that he ends up with far fewer.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres and other related associations have been strenuously lobbying members serving on the Education Bill Standing Committee, because it is not just Storey Arms which will go. If the Government's education policies continue, all these centres will be lost in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Davies: These are the clear choices facing hon. Members in the Lobbies tonight. It is just a pity that the people of Wales cannot vote on the record of the Secretary of State. It is also a pity that the right hon. Gentleman does not have uppermost in his mind his responsibility to work with local authorities to improve the quality of Welsh life, instead of choosing continually to undermine them.
The right hon. Gentleman sought, for instance to divert attention from these cuts and their consequences by dividing the counties from the districts, seeking to achieve by presentational trickery what he could not do in open debate. He wanted to hide from the people of Wales the direct consequences of his policies. Today he tried to suggest that there was an agreement of sorts—that the tier share was unfortunate this year, but that that was some historical accident which did not matter because counties and districts had agreed.
That is just not true. I should like to read into the record a letter that I received from the secretary of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, written on 5 February:
Dear Mr. Davies
1993–94 Tier Share of Standard Spending Assessments
With reference to your inquiry as to whether the Assembly of Welsh Counties had agreed the 1993–94 tier share of SSAs, there is no justification for the Secretary of State making such an assertion, unless he attempts to rely on discussions held last September between Welsh Office officials and officers of the Assembly"——

Mr. David Hunt: That is right.

Mr. Davies: Fine. I continue:
If the Secretary of State opts for this argument, then it is only fair to point out that at the time of the alleged officer agreement no figures relating to the 1993–94 grant year were available, and the minute of the meeting records that further discussions would take place when the relevant data became available.
As Secretary of the Assembly of Welsh Counties and also on behalf of the Financial Adviser and other officers present representing the AWC at the meeting with Welsh Office officials on 28 September 1992, I give the categorical assurance that no agreement was signified at that meeting to the use of the tier share methodology for the 1993–94. D. Hugh Thomas
That is a clear repudiation of the Secretary of State's position, and I hope that he will reflect on it.

Mr. Hunt: I agree with the words used by that honourable public servant—with every word. I confirmed earlier that the agreement reached in September was reached in the context in which Mr. Thomas has put it, and the minutes record an agreement. I accept that Mr. Thomas genuinely believed that agreement had not been reached. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will move on from what could be a very divisive issue. If he proceeds to give the view of the Council of Welsh Districts —I do not know whether he has consulted it—he will no doubt tell us that it takes an opposite view to the one expressed by Mr. Thomas. Such discussion does not further relations between local authorities, the Government and the Opposition, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not carry on with it.

Mr. Davies: That comes ill from a Secretary of State who, after the meeting at which he sought to divide the counties from the districts, went out to the steps of the Welsh Office to brief the press and said. "If they can agree among themselves, so be it. If they cannot, let them fight it out." So who is talking about divisions and consensus? I will not have a Secretary of State who has done all he can


to cause division and undermine local government telling me or any of my hon. Friends who have spent years in local government about divisiveness.
Of course I have consulted the districts closely. It is true that they have done relatively well this year compared with the counties. There is certainly disagreement on the formula used to calculate the tier split. Even so, the pattern of cuts for the districts is exactly the same. There is a £12 million cut in the housing programme, economic development budget cuts in Swansea, 30 per cent. of the urban programme schemes have been axed in Cardiff and the urban renovation projects in Blaenau Gwent have been scrapped. I have a direct answer to the Secretary of State's question. We have consulted the districts closely and found that the pattern of cuts is exactly the same as that for the counties.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Secretary of State is fomenting differences. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Storey Arms, an issue which I took up with the South Glamorgan council on behalf of a number of constituents. I am still awaiting a reply, but I do not complain about that. South Glamorgan council has a discretion in the matter: for the hon. Gentleman to try to put the blame for every action by a local authority on the Secretary of State is plainly stupid.

Mr. Davies: I mean no reflection on the hon. Gentleman when I say that that issue was discussed about 10 minutes ago. He has only just managed to work out his question. The hon. Gentleman is the only hon. Member I know who thinks that being called a diligent constituency Member of Parliament by the Secretary of State is a compliment.
There is a great variation, especially among the districts, in the range of budget increases allowed under the new draconian capping rules. Districts such as Newport and Cardiff are restricted to increases of under 2 per cent. Islwyn, Aberconwy, Torfaen and Swansea will be restricted to increases of between 2 and 3 per cent. As we have seen, those represent substantial cuts in real terms and will lead to drastic cuts in services. The areas to suffer will include some of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom, and the severity of the cuts will mean that in many cases even the reduced capital programme cannot be undertaken. That will directly undermine the thrust of the Government's revised economic policy that was announced in the autumn statement.
What is the logic or the justice of penalising the former mining valleys while the relatively more prosperous areas do so much better? Monmouth does best with an increase of over 25 per cent. Dinefwr, South Pembrokeshire and Carmarthen have increases above 20 per cent. That irrational pattern is repeated year after year. How can local authorities be expected to plan ahead, and make long-term financial decisions when next year's allocation is always in doubt, and especially so this time, when Welsh Office uncertainties and inaccuracies have resulted in the severest delays?
On 29 January, the Western Mail reported that the Secretary of State said:
I am the first to acknowledge that my plans present some councils with difficult budgeting decisions.
He can say that again. He continued:
Nonetheless, this settlement is the most that the country and local taxpayers can afford in the present economic circumstances.
There it is in a nutshell. The Secretary of State acknowledges that after 14 years of government by his party, after the receipt of billions of pounds from asset selling, the one-off windfall of North sea oil, the succession of brilliant reforming Chancellors and consensus-seeking Secretaries of State for Wales, the Government do not think that we can afford to house people decently, to care for the elderly or educate the young. The Secretary of State might think that that is good enough for the people of Wales. We do not, and that is why we shall vote against the motions.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I should like to concentrate on the way in which the proposed rate support grant settlement will affect my county of Clwyd. My constituents and I depend on my county for a wide range of essential services which are best provided by local government. I shall describe what the cut in funding—for that is what it is—for county-based services will mean. Despite what the Secretary of State said, it is a cut on a cut and on many previous cuts. He cannot seriously expect the residents of Clwyd to believe that the elected representatives of whatever party would happily agree to cut budgets and therefore services by £3 million last year and £12 million in the coming year.
Clwyd has the unhappy problem of the Welsh Office treating standard spending assessments as figures cast in tablets of stone, which results in Clwyd having an assessment of £37 per head below the all-county average. Leaving aside the principle of using a figure which was always intended as a guideline for precise financial control, it is obvious that a county with rural and urban problems has uniquely synergistic circumstances. Its use means that Clwyd faces a cut of £12 million, if the threat of capping with the same criteria as last year is maintained.
As a result, the community development budget in Clwyd will be reduced by £374,000. That will lead to cuts in libraries, an 80 per cent. reduction in adult fiction and rationalisation of the mobile library service, which is a godsend in a rural area. While those proposals imply a poorer service, they are at least preferable to the option of closing 15 static libraries to reach the same target.
Development and tourism will have to be cut. There are proposals to reduce the development and marketing budget, which critically affects the capacity of the county council to assist in building up the county's economic infrastructure at a time of recession. Revenue for education will be reduced by £7 million. The aim has been to reduce the impact on school budgets through central support services taking a higher percentage of the reductions. As a consequence, target savings have been reached in Clwyd by increasing the cost of school meals and school transport charges.
With 70 per cent. of the education budget delegated to schools, it is inevitable that, despite the protection afforded, there will be reductions in teaching staff. That will mean the loss of more than 200 jobs. The areas of environment and protection cover emergency planning, the fire service, the planning department, the registration service and the trading standards service. The cuts in those services amount to £216,000. Target reductions of just under £500,000 were required, but such savings could not


be found, because there is already a shortage of firefighters and cuts would have made it impossible to maintain the proper level of fire cover. Despite that, the service budget is to be cut by £156,000.
In highways and transportation, the proposed cut is £1 million, and that will affect highway improvements. Capital resources for that purpose will be switched to structural maintenance to ensure that the rate of deterioration in the fabric of the county's highways does not continue to increase. The switch not only affects the council's capacity to improve the county's infrastructure, but will have an impact on local employment.
The policy and financial resources area of Clwyd county council faces a reduction of £500,000. That will require efficiency savings, income generation and 21 job losses. The social services budget will be reduced by £1 million, and that is the worst cut. The proposals for Clwyd lead to reductions in capacity to implement in full the requirements of the Children Act 1989. There will be increases in home care charges, meals on wheels charges and luncheon club charges for the elderly, as well as increases in charges for day centres attended by those with learning difficulties.

Mr. David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Clwyd county council also estimates that many jobs may be lost in many other sectors? I am particularly concerned about the projections for Theatre Clwyd in my constituency. Our concern is that cuts in revenue support grant will lead to further closures and job losses and perhaps to the loss of centres of excellence. I also support my hon. Friend's comments about library services. I visited the mobile library in my constituency three weeks ago and found a valuable service to rural areas which is threatened by cuts. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency in particular, which covers the shire towns of Clwyd, faces job cuts which will have knock-on effects on the local economy?

Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for his intervention. I did not mention Theatre Clwyd, but it is a centre of excellence which attracts jobs and investment to the area.
As the Secretary of State said, the community care moneys will be increased by £6·6 million. That is all very well, but the committee is still underfunded to meet the obligation, as most of the transferred moneys will be used to replace a loss of Department of Social Security income in residential establishments. The committee is short of its target reduction figure by £640,000, the only alternative which would have enabled the committee to come in on target being the closure of yet more elderly persons' homes —three in all.
The reductions that I have mentioned give only part of the picture in terms of the scale of the problem. Budgets were already overstretched before the Secretary of State's guidelines and standstill budgets have been the norm for some years, which means that there has been little scope to develop services or to keep pace with the increased demand for services by customers and the increased responsibilities imposed on local authorities by central Government.
Furthermore, at a time of severe recession, reductions in the services provided by local authorities affect most severely those who are most vulnerable to changes in

economic conditions. In having to make cuts in services, with the inevitable job implications—perhaps as many as 400 jobs are at risk, and the knock-on effect must also be included—the county council is having to help worsen the situation for those people for whom it has responsibility. Rather than being given the capacity to offset the worst effects of the recession and to plan for the future, the county council's expenditure reductions mean that it has a reduced ability to promote the long-term welfare and economic well-being of the people of Clwyd.
What does all this mean in terms of democracy, employment or even common sense? First, in terms of local democracy, it means that councils cannot make up shortfalls in central taxation of funding by Government —that is what we are debating today. They cannot raise local taxes because of that expensive fiasco, the poll tax. As the Secretary of State said, 90 per cent. of funding comes from central sources, and the local element is capped anyway so there are more insidious effects. Councils are now reluctant to fulfil the wishes of their electors by turning down even the most obnoxious planning applications—waste tips, opencast quarries and so on—because most are subsequently granted by the Secretary of State after an expensive appeal paid for by the council. That effectively removes any genuine local democracy.

Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: We do not have a lot of time, but I will give way.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that any local authority in Wales is so far in dereliction of its duty that it is granting planning permission and not discharging its proper statutory obligations to consider plans on their merits and according to policies?

Mr. Jones: No.
That effectively removes any local democracy and allows developments of the kind that I have mentioned in places where they could not and should not be allowed —for example, at a site such as Pen y Bont in my constituency, where a waste tip is bordered on all sides by a river which carries water to my constituency and that of the Secretary of State. The plan was turned down by the county council, but was granted by the Secretary of State after an expensive appeal paid for 90 per cent. out of central Government taxation and 10 per cent. by my local constituents.
There are two employment considerations. There is the first and immediately obvious direct effect of the loss of 200-plus jobs in teaching, 50-plus jobs in social services and 21 jobs in shire halls. Secondly, the ability of the council to attract jobs will be reduced. Clwyd county council has persuaded 87 companies to set up there, with the creation of 3,172 jobs. The attack on Clwyd's grant will damage economic development. It needs more money to promote such schemes, but it is getting less.
That leads me neatly to the lack of common sense in the whole business. The cut will mean a reduction in home helps, more expensive meals for the elderly, cuts in transport and in day care for the mentally handicapped. It will mean that Clwyd will not be able to meet the conditions of the Children Act 1989, or the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Where is the common sense in legislating for such


provisions and then not giving the agencies which have to implement them the wherewithal to carry out the required tasks?
To make matters worse, the differential between the districts and the county suggests that, although the settlement is not over-generous, the services that they provide are valued more than those provided by the county.

Dr. John Marek: I have been listening to my hon. Friend, and it is clear that Clwyd county council is in terrible straits. Although the Government do not have a mandate in Wales, where they had a derisory vote in the last general election, they are in office here in London for four years and will continue to screw down county councils. Is not the lesson to be drawn from that that the Secretary of State should get on with reorganisation of local government as quickly as possible to put an end to the county councils and introduce unitary authorities to restore the power and freedom of action that local authorities used to have in the Principality?

Mr. Jones: As a supporter of unitary authorities, I agree with my hon. Friend, but there will be elections before that—a point to which I shall be coming.
The difference in funding between the districts and the counties is strange, given that the upheavals created in education and social service provision by the Government's legislation has affected local government functions. Where is the sense in that? The Government would deny that this is cynically designed to cause even more chaos in education and to drive schools into opting out. It would be interesting to know where they would get the money to fund every school directly if all decided to go for direct rule from Whitehall via Cardiff, which is what grant-maintained status means.
Lastly, I shall cynically speculate that those enforced cuts in county council spending are nicely timed to force Labour councils to reduce services and make unpopular choices under the threat of capping just before the next county elections. It might also have more than a little to do with the fact that the council tax has every chance of bringing enormous bills through our letter boxes once more. The poll tax is dead: long live poll tax 2. Or perhaps, Nightmare on High Street 1" is being superseded by "Nightmare on High Street 2", subtitled, "The Council Tax".

Mr. Jonathan Evans: During the debate, we have heard of an outdoor education centre that is based within my constituency and run by South Glamorgan county council. As I said earlier, it is one of 10, all of them run by local authorities, including three London authorities, three in Wales and Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and Essex. Those centres are greatly valued, not only in my constituency but by the 17,000 pupils all over the country who visit my constituency to benefit from attending the centres.
We have heard an attempt to pin on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales the blame for a decision that has so far been only recommended, and has yet to be made by South Glamorgan county council—that to close the Storey Arms centre. In the circumstances, it is important that we look carefully at the background to the matter. It is interesting that the proposals that are to be

considered by the county council involves not just the change to Storey Arms but also affect two other centres of learning outside the county council boundary at Llanover and Porthcawl.
In the case of the Storey Arms centre, as I understand the proposal, it is not that it should be closed altogether, but that the amount of money being provided by way of funding to South Glamorgan county council from the Secretary of State is so insufficient that there should be a cut in its budget and it should become self-financing, inviting pupils to pay £180 a time to visit the centre.
I have a letter that was sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales by Mr. David Morris, the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Mid and West Wales, who draws attention to the prospective decision. In the final paragraph, he states:
I would, therefore, appeal to you to provide South Glamorgan County Council with an extra allocation of funds to save Storey Arms from closure.
In other words, Mr. Morris invites my right hon. Friend to find sufficient money to save that specific centre. That demonstrates that South Glamorgan county council has embarked on a political stunt.
It was wicked to have contemplated such a course of action, especially because it dreadfully embarrasses Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) he referred specifically to the representations that have been made by the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres.
The hon. Member for Bridgend will know—I am aware that he has tirelessly been doing his duty considering the Education Bill in Committee—that the association has been making representations on a clause that would convert outdoor education centres to free-standing status. It is proposed that there should be a two-year transitional period, but that is not the position of South Glamorgan county council. Indeed, it has pre-empted that debate. It has said that the scheme will come into operation on 1 April. That means that the Storey Arms will have two months in which to acclimatise itself to a new financial regime.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The hon. Gentleman shows a partial understanding of the situation in which the outdoor education centres find themselves. It is clear from all the representations that I have received from them that, under the local management of schools system—a system which directs considerable funds to individual schools—the centres throughout England and Wales are generally in great difficulty already. They are saying that the spread of grantmaintained status would finish them off. Storey Arms is suffering earlier than the rest, but they are sure to suffer as well.

Mr. Evans: That intervention demonstrates the limited understanding of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). That comes as some surprise to me, because he is a member of the Committee that is considering the Education Bill.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres, along with Mr. McMorrin —he is active in Wales and is a constituent of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—has said


that the existing system of financing the local management of schools is putting pressure on outdoor education centres and that clause 224 of the Education Bill represents the last nail in their coffin. They say that South Glamorgan county council's decision—it has been forced to take it because of its financial predicament—to pre-empt clause 224 is not an isolated one. There are Conservative-controlled authorities in England—in Cumbria—that have already mothballed outdoor education centres. The position of South Glamorgan county council is not unique.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. He has referred to the clause in the Education Bill that has been the subject of representations both by the association to the Minister and by myself. He well knows that the action that is being taken by South Glamorgan cuts the ground from under his feet when he comes to argue these matters in Committee, and specifically in the context of Storey Arms.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned other outdoor education centres. He knows that within my costituency there are nine other such centres, many of which are run by Conservative authorities. They are not, however, under the threat that faces Storey Arms, whatever difficulties are arising. We are seeking to address these matters in terms of the switch to the local management of schools.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: I should like to make some progress, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jones: I have been taking children to the outdoor centre at Dol-y-Gaer over the past decade and more. In the past few days I have had conversations with Clive Roberts, the manager of Dol-y-Gaer, and with Mr. Pugh, the manager of Storey Arms. The difference between Storey Arms and many of the other nine centres in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is that Storey Arms has almost 100 per cent. usage by school children from the county. Other authorities are having increasingly to find finance from companies and other sources to pay for the use of the centres. The problem is trying to turn round Storey Arms, as it were, within the time scale that South Glamorgan county council has in mind. It is——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a speech.

Mr. Evans: South Glamorgan county council has to consider, in the context of the funding that has been made available to it, whether the facilities can be kept available for the school children of South Glamorgan. My primary concern is to keep Storey Arms centre open. I have very much in mind the employment of 14 of my constituents who work at the facility. The key feature is that South Glamorgan county council is making a decision that will damage 2,000 children from its area who visit Storey Arms centre each year. It is clear from the cacophony of protests from Opposition Members that the decision has been made by South Glamorgan county council and that it is not attributable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I have had the opportunity to speak to South Glamorgan county councillors about the matter. They have told me that the financial problem that faces the

county council could easily be addressed. It seems that that has not happened because of the political difficulties that we have heard about from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). Within the Ely area of Cardiff there is a surplus of secondary school places, which means that savings could be made. Unfortunately, South Glamorgan county council is fearful of making such a decision, for political reasons. It seems that it is prepared to carry the cost of surplus places and to make a political stunt decision that is designed to pin the blame on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
That example clearly illustrates the thrust of the Opposition's approach to these matters. They are not prepared to consider the facts of life and to take proper but tough decisions. Instead, they wish to pin the blame on someone else. It is extraordinary that we are receiving daily from the National Union of Teachers cards that tell us about the wonderful system of accountability that we have with our local education authorities. On the contrary. LEAs and too many other authorities and individuals in local government wish to disclaim accountability. We must surely pin accountability to where it lies, and in this instance there is no doubt that South Glamorgan county council is responsible.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Perhaps we can now return to the subject after that extraordinary diatribe, which had nothing to do with the settlement. I remind the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) that about an hour ago the Secretary of State said, "We are discussing reality." I suggest to the Minister that the Secretary of State was discussing only his perception of reality, rather than the reality that counties and districts in Wales are having to face.
What sort of reality is it, 14 years after Lady Thatcher quoted St. Francis of Assisi on the steps of No. 10 Downing street, that leads to the situation that I am about to describe? I shall take the real example of Miss J., who lives in a village in my constituency and whom I visited a few days ago. She has a 95-year-old father. She and her father lived alone in a council house until very recently. They have no car and rely on the good nature of friends to drive them around.
Miss J's father is in hospital in Newtown. It has been decided that he should be removed from hospital to a place in the community—somewhere where he can pass his last few years. But in what community? He has been offered one place in Shropshire, far away from public transport, and another place in Shropshire even further from public transport. He is not even allowed to die quietly in his country, Wales. His daughter, who is neither young nor in the best of health, will hardly be able to visit him—perhaps once a fortnight through the kindness of her friends.
The destruction that this version of care in the community is bringing to the daughter's life and that of her father is self-evident. It arises because there simply is not the finance available in Powys to ensure that an elderly gentleman, born and bred in his own village, can pass the rest of his days in close proximity to the village from where his daugher can have reasonable access to him.
What kind of reality is it when the chief executive of Powys county council, for understandable reasons, is leaving, partly because of the uncertainty that faces local government in Wales? He has gone to a very good job. Our


loss is Shropshire's gain. He is an extremely able chief executive, but I do not doubt for a minute that his decision was made partly because morale in local government in Wales is very low. Indeed, just before the end of last year, the council's director of education took early retirement, saying openly that he was doing so because of declining morale in local government and the uncertainty of the education system under this Government. The deputy director of education took early retirement, too: his spirit was sapped by what had been happening in local government.
What kind of reality is it when, after years, decades and in some cases more than a century of providing not only good but essential service, the village school in Pontrobert in my constituency, which has adequate buildings, high education standards and excellent teachers, is facing closure and is fighting for its life, led by its redoubtable chairman of governors, Mr. Huw Gwalchmai? What kind of job is it to be the chairman of governors of a school, especially a village school?
In what kind of reality is Powys county council and its high schools being asked to meet the requirements that will rightly be made by the Welsh Language Bill when it becomes law? Why are staff at Caereinion high school in my constituency riven by dissension about the way in which they should deal with the problem of education through the medium of Welsh? It is because successive Governments have not ensured that the problem was properly tackled throughout Wales.
What kind of reality is it that leads to the most inconsistent administration of trading standards law that we have seen in the past 25 years since the enactment of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968? In one county, shoddy and defective goods may lead to a prosecution; but in another there is no money even to consider a prosecution. The uncertainty goes further than that, because the Secretary of State, in the foreplay to his extraordinary dance with the White Paper on local government reform, seems to have changed his mind at least once already about what will happen to trading standards in Wales.
What kind of reality is it when we hear that Theatre Clwyd, a great centre of excellence which has brought a new level of cultural attraction and achievement to north and mid-Wales, faces cuts that will mean a reduction in the availability of performing arts, in the availability of participatory arts and in the availability of the often neglected visual arts for the northern half of Wales? I do not think that that is a reality that the Secretary of State should be proud of.
I do not much care—and neither do the people of Wales —which quadratic equation is applied to the funding of local government in Wales. We have heard the Secretary of State's version of the quadratic equation. On the Labour side, we have at least one expert on the quadratic equation from Wrexham. Each could produce their own formula, for what it is worth. What matters much more than the formula is what happens to people.
What kind of reality is it that leads to the public in Wales having to drive over potholed roads; or to find that there has been a bailey bridge on a well-used road between Welshpool and Montgomery for the past 20 years? These are the realities which people should not have to face.
It is a matter of shame, which the Government should recognise as their own shame, that, 14 years after Lady Thatcher stood quoting the words of generous hope and concord of St. Francis of Assisi, the level of public service

through local government in Wales has declined, that the quality of democracy in Wales has declined and that public uncertainty has increased.
I call on the Minister to answer those questions when he replies to the debate, because without answers the people of Wales will remain rightly dissatisfied with the performance of this Government and their current viceroy from an English constituency.

Mr. Rod Richards: Perhaps we can now return to the reality of this debate, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), whose face becomes increasingly unfamiliar to Conservative Members as the years go by.
I know of no problem that the Labour party cannot solve without spending more money. Indeed, for the Labour party it is as easy as signing an IOU. It fails to realise and recognise that more money spent on local government means less money spent elsewhere on health, on benefits or whatever. The Opposition fail to recognise that one cannot run the country as they ran it in the 1970s. They spent and spent and spent without realising their obligations to the country at large.

Mr. Ainger: The hon. Gentleman says that the previous Labour Government spent and spent and spent; but what is the projected public spending borrowing requirement for next year?

Mr. Richards: That is precisely the point. It is because the projected public sector borrowing requirement is so high—about £30 billion—that Government spending must be constrained. It is a point that the Opposition have failed to understand this year, as they have always failed to understand it. Indeed, every Labour Government have failed to understand that fundamental aspect of governing a country. Government spending must be placed in the context of Government income, which has to be put in the context of the economy of the world. As the Opposition know, the economy of the western world has been in recession.
I have seen many crocodile tears from the Opposition who recommend that the Government should spend more on this, that or the other. However, they have not mentioned the waste and corruption in local authorities, usually those run by Labour. There are scandals and corruption from Lambeth to Liverpool, from Monklands to Manchester, and in Sheffield——

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the revenue support grant orders for Wales? None of the local authorities that he mentioned has anything to do with Wales, and neither of the reports that we are debating will affect local government in the areas that he mentioned, so his references must be wholly out of order.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me rule on one point of order at a time. I assume that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is alluding to those authorities in relation to the reports. If so, he is in order, but if he develops his argument, he will not he in order.

Mr. Carlile: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to accuse local authorities of criminal offences and of corruption without naming those authorities and without having evidence on which to base his accusation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for what they say in the House. The Chair has no responsibility for that.

Mr. Richards: The last authority that I mentioned was Sheffield city council. The Opposition will be aware that that council is providing offices rent and rates-free to five Labour hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I made it clear that allusions were in order, but the hon. Gentleman is not to develop them. The order is clear—let us return to the subject of Wales.

Mr. Richards: I referred to those authorities in England because I wished to draw an analogy with the Labour party in Rhyl in my constituency, which appears to have modelled itself on Lambeth. That is no surprise, because it is run from Liverpool city council.
Some members of Rhyl Labour party have applied to Clwyd county council for funding for what they call the Rhyl West community resource team. The team requires resources of about £80,000 from public sector funds. However, it means nothing other than jobs for the boys of Rhyl Labour party, because it will offer the good people of west Rhyl nothing more than advice and information——

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not wish to make another point of order, but it is clear that the hon. Gentleman's scurrilous and unprovoked attack on individuals in his constituency is outside the debate. He is referring to individuals——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Davies: Let me put my case, if I may.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has already put his case, because he has spoken for several seconds. He said that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West was out of order, but I have been listening especially attentively in the light of the previous points of order, and so far the hon. Gentleman is in order.

Mr. Richards: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The £80,000 allocated by Clwyd county council to such a project means £80,000 less for another project.

Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Opposition get excited, it means that one has hit the nail on the head?

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend has also, characteristically, hit the nail on the head.
The so-called resource team offers to do no more than established organisations already do. It will do nothing but duplicate services already being provided by citizens advice bureaux. The bureaux and the library information service would like more funding from Clwyd county council, and they already provide the advice and information that the resource team would duplicate.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman was talking about an application that had been approved by the local authority, that would be within the terms of the debate, but as he is talking about an organisation which has merely made an application to the local authority, he cannot be in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, we are debating the financial year 1993–94, and I presume that applications for that year have not yet closed. I assume that the organisation is applying for local government funding, so it must be covered by a debate on expenditure.

Mr. Richards: I am trying to highlight the fact that the Opposition do not use public funds in the best possible way. I mentioned citizens advice bureaux and the library information service, which would like more funding. A benefits advice shop already exists in Rhyl, so the resource team which has applied for £80,000 will merely duplicate the existing services. It is absolutely scandalous.
I, and, I am sure, many other hon. Members, have corresponded with people who are involved with the mentally handicapped in Clwyd, and Clwyd social services department has cut the resources available to them. It is outrageous that the Opposition should use funds to duplicate services when other services, which the county council is cutting, need more funding.
We shall take no lessons from the Opposition on underfunding or on any other aspect of funding until they put their house in order and ensure that their local government representatives properly represent the people who elected them.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I was expecting the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) to continue his speech for much longer. I am most grateful that he did not.
Following the election, the Secretary of State has imposed capping criteria in Wales for the first time. The capping has not been imposed gradually, as may have been the case in England. In Wales, the axe has fallen especially suddenly, severely and unfairly. By the autumn, it became clear that there would be a £200 million shortfall in the amount that county councils would be allowed to spend. The final settlement confirms that only £78 million has been allowed for inflation, for increased demand and for the problems associated with an increasingly elderly population. It was believed that £262 million was necessary. The additional sum allocated for community care is recognised by everyone within the service as completely inadequate for the increased demands put on it.
I know that local authorities argue constantly—and with good cause—for more funding. This time they can with justice claim a crisis of cash shortage. Vital services, in the real sense of the word, are being put at risk. I am talking not about library services but about vital services such as the social services and the fire service. I am not being alarmist in saying that people will die as a result of the cuts. Essential functions in education and in highways will be severely affected. Many valued provisions will cease to exist.
The cuts are also unfair because they are not evenly applied. Districts, as we have been told, will be allowed a


10 per cent. increase in spending, but the counties will receive only a 1·5 per cent. increase. Is this another of the Secretary of State's attempts to divide and rule? He has no mandate in Wales, and he seeks to put those who have a mandate at one another's throats.
In my county of South Glamorgan, £8 million will have to be cut from the budget this year. Up to 600 jobs will be lost, at a time of huge unemployment. Almost 15 per cent. are out of work in my constituency alone.
The cuts are being made when there is an unprecedented imposition of what should be taught in schools and how it should be taught. Counties such as South Glamorgan are forced into an ever-narrowing curriculum. The Gradgrind, Dickensian view of teaching is in the ascendancy among Conservative Members and is now to be pushed on the people of Wales.
In South Glamorgan, we have the nationally acclaimed South Glamorgan youth orchestra, which is now under severe threat. Music is to become an optional extra in schools, available only to those who can pay. That may not be of great concern to some Conservative Members, but Labour Members believe that a subject such as music should be available to all, because it enriches all people.
Youth and community education is to be decimated at a time when it is most needed. There is 30 per cent. youth unemployment in parts of South Glamorgan, yet youth and community education faces a cut of £750,000.
There has been much discussion about outdoor pursuit centres and about the centre at Story Arms. All the outdoor pursuits centres, not only those run by South Glamorgan county council, are in danger of closing.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jones: Yes, they are. The hon. Gentleman should talk to people at more of them. All outdoor pursuit centres now have to compete for the same area of the market. They are all trying to get companies to spend a lot of money on sending their executives and directors on leadership courses, because those people can pay.
The outdoor pursuit centres were established to give an essential part of education to the pupils who should receive it as a right and not because they could afford it. I used to take groups of biology A-level pupils to the Story Arms centre. Field studies are an important part of the geography A-level course. I also used to take disabled children to the centre. It is a great thing to see the satisfaction and sense of achievement that those pupils can get from outdoor pursuit centres. That opportunity will be denied them by Conservative cuts.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman has put his points forcefully to the House. Has he put them to Russell Goodway, the leader of South Glamorgan county council?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I have. I have urged Russell Goodway to try to find cuts in other parts of the budget. I know that that will mean that someone else suffers, but because I have a personal interest in the matter, I have made that suggestion. If Councillor Goodway tells me that he cannot find extra funding and that he cannot find any other area to cut, I shall understand his position.
Storey Arms needs a little more time in which to try to win a reprieve. That will not help the people of South Glamorgan who want to use the service. If it survives, it will do so because it takes in more external funding, and

it will have to cut the service it now provides for children in South Glamorgan schools. From that point of view, they will still have lost.
Economic development in South Glamorgan has had to face cuts. What a time to do that! The county council has been one of the foremost in developing links with industry. Unfortunately, there will have to be cuts in economic development.
Some £400,000 must be cut from discretionary awards to students, which means that the poor will no longer be able to afford to take up many important courses. Taiwan now sends more people to university than Britain does, yet we shall have to cut discretionary awards, which will mean that students cannot take up courses.
The council is being forced to cut care for the elderly and for those with mental health problems. Those least able to cope are having to pay the price for the Government's mismanagement of the economy.
Even the fire service does not escape the cuts. A new fire station is due to be built in Pentwyn in my constituency, but the project is now to be delayed. The fire service in parts of east Cardiff will no longer be able to meet its statutory attendance times. That is why I said that some people will die as a result of the cuts.
It is shameful for the Secretary of State, who has no mandate from the people of Wales, to come here to impose cuts on us. I hope that Conservative Members will have the courage to vote with us at 7 pm.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that the Secretary of State for Wales had imposed on Wales the most swingeing cuts imaginable. The reality is that, over the last two years, there has been an increase of 25 per cent. A further increase of 3.1 per cent. is scheduled in the forthcoming year. That is hardly a brutal cut in services.
I heard the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) suggest that a Conservative Member of honour would vote against the Government on this occasion. I make it perfectly clear to him that I thoroughly support the Government's plan and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. Given the stringency with which the Government need to approach spending in general, my right hon. Friend's announcement today is suprisingly and reassuringly generous.

Mr. Dafis: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the difference between the standard spending assessment allowed by the Welsh Office to Dyfed county council and the budget that the council requires to maintain standard services at last year's level is £20 million.

Mr. Sweeney: That makes one wonder how that local authority has run its affairs in the past. The perception of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) differs from the reality. It is rather like George Orwell's slogan in "Animal Farm":
Four legs good, two legs bad.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to a heart-breaking case known to him. I am sure that we could all look into our postbags or reminisce about our surgeries and refer to hard cases that would help to illustrate the difficulties facing local and national Government at the present time.
As Conservative Members are well aware, unfortunately we cannot spend money that we do not have. It is


because we have been attempting to do that—[Interruption.] Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. If they do not like us borrowing so much, they must accept that it is natural to take a grip on public spending. Local government must share part of that burden.
If local and national Government do not take a grip on public spending, private individuals will have to shoulder the entire burden. People have made it clear to me in correspondence and at my surgeries that they cannot shoulder a growing burden of Government debt. They cannot and will not do that. If they are pushed, the result will be job losses. The wealth creators will be driven under, and that cannot be good for any of us. In the long term, there would be a reduction in the services which Opposition Members complain that we are jeopardising.
This is a fair settlement that is in the interests of the Welsh economy and the Welsh people. To attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not being Welsh and for not representing a Welsh constituency is cheap in the extreme and irrelevant. The public will appreciate that, as usual, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has driven a hard bargain in the interests of the people of Wales, and has done a good job for us today.

Mr. Llew Smith: The best measuring rod of whether local government finance is fair must be whether it responds to people's needs. I have always believed that investment and finance should go where the need is greatest. The Welsh Office has recognised that my constituency of Blaenau Gwent is the second most deprived borough in Wales. If one were to visit my constituency, one would see high levels of unemployment. Those who are employed are on low wages. We have some of the worst housing stock in Wales, and some of the most severe health problems.
I want to highlight the poverty and deprivation in Blaenau Gwent. In 1991–92, 30 per cent. of the children in Blaenau Gwent received free school meals. In 1990–91, nearly 97 per cent. of the families with children at one school in Blaenau Gwent received income support. The 1991 census showed that pensioners in my constituency were more likely to be without a bath, shower or inside toilet than anywhere else in Gwent.
The unemployment rate in Blaenau Gwent is higher than the Welsh average. Young people in particular have tremendous skills, talents and creativity, but they are not being allowed to use them to benefit the communities that comprise Blaenau Gwent or to benefit the great industries in which they should be working.
Some people might say that local government finance should not concern itself with employment as it is really about providing public services. However, we all recognise that employment and public services are interlinked. I was reminded of that some weeks ago, when the local authority announced that many housing grants were being ended. The authority was approached by building contractors, who highlighted the adverse effect that that would have on housing in Blaenau Gwent. The contractors also stressed that many of their employees would be made redundant.
It is not just the contractors and people who build and repair the houses who are affected. A building supplier told me that, because of the contraction in the building

industry and the fact that the local authority was ending many housing grants, he would have to make many people unemployed.
Many of our services, particularly housing, have been affected. Blaenau Gwent has some of the worst housing stock in Wales. As a result of the Government's policies, Blaenau Gwent has been unable to build one new council house in the past nine years, even though there are 4,000 people on the housing waiting list. As I have said, in recent months the authority has announced that there will be even greater housing problems in future as a result of the cuts in housing grants.
With all those problems and many more, one would have expected the Government to respond positively to the problems of communities like Blaenau Gwent. However, that has not happened. The Welsh Office recently told Blaenau Gwent that its SSA for 1993–94 will be lower than the provisional figure that it issued just a month ago.
The borough will now have to make savings of £171,000 in addition to the cuts of £2.1 million that committees are being forced to make on the basis of the provisional spending limit. That equates to approximately £70 per household in the borough of Blaenau Gwent. The people who already face considerable deprivation will experience even more deprivation in terms of job losses and cuts in services.
Not only is that unfair: it is the economics of the madhouse. Government cuts in provision to local authorities in the middle of the recession will not save the Exchequer a penny. While the Government take money away from local authorities with one hand, they must with the other hand provide the Treasury with more money to meet the costs of unemployment. We now know that every unemployed person costs the state about £9,000 in benefits and lost taxes. That figure does not take into account the increase in the number of free school meals, housing benefit and many other social problems which increase as unemployment increases.
The Government do not believe in public expenditure. However, I believe in it, and I am committed to it. Public expenditure can be a liberating force which can allow young people to do something useful with their lives. It can bring dignity to the unemployed, the homeless and people experiencing sub-standard education. It gives them the opportunity to do something good with their lives.
Public expenditure also helps to transform our communities—the garden festival in my constituency is a classic example. That area would not have been transformed without public investment. The lesson we should learn is that we need a higher level of public expenditure if we are to regenerate those communities. What is more, decisions relating to that public expenditure should be taken increasingly by people who are elected, accountable and as close as possible to local people.
In contrast, over the past decade there has been a process of increased centralisation. In respect of that, there has been an increase in the use of the power of capping. That will obviously affect communities like Blaenau Gwent, which already suffer so much deprivation, adversely in the months to come. In addition to the centralisation of powers, those powers are also being hived off to Government quangos, to unelected and unaccountable business men and, occasionally, business women.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted the Financial Times, and said that unelected quango boards
are now responsible for a fifth of all public expenditure—at £42,000 million, more than the total spending of local government, and a figure which has increased three times since 1979."—[Official Report, 3 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 344.]
The movement away from accountability, linked to decisions which are increasingly to be made by bankers under the Maastricht treaty, will increasingly force people to ask, "What is the use of voting if the people we vote for have no real decisions or real influence over decisions that affect our lives?" The system of local government finance, as stated by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) last week, is
unfair, unjust and deliberately tailored to shackle, rather than free, local priorities and local enterprise."—[Official Report, 3 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 363.]
The hon. Gentleman was speaking about England, but the debate shows that, tragically, the situation is no different in Wales.

Mr. Roger Evans: I welcome the settlement. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) almost gave the game away by saying in terms that Monmouth had done well this year. He is for once—almost uniquely—correct. However, table 1.6 shows that Monmouth's public expenditure per head of population is still the lowest of any district council in Wales—£123, as opposed to £194 in Blaenau Gwent.
In the peculiar system of standard spending assessments, until this year there has been a bias in favour of urban Wales and against rural Wales. In particular, in Monmouth it was felt very strongly in the past few years that a low-spending rural authority which happens, of course, to be Conservative-controlled, having extra costs as a result of not being an urban authority—for example, it costs much more to collect domestic refuse in the country—has been penalised in the past but not this year. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and I thoroughly welcome it.
It is not satisfactory to say that, somehow or other, the announcement is miserable and mean and that it will cause enormous anguish, although that argument has been articulated with brilliant skill by various hon. Members. The point at stake, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has said, is that we must look at the announcement in the context of the past three years which, including the year that we are discussing, show an increase of no less than 29 per cent.
A few hon. Members who are present happen to represent constituencies other than Welsh constituencies, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is again to be congratulated on achieving in Wales a better deal than obtains in England. The total standard spending in Wales per head is £901 in the year that we are talking about, as opposed to £856 in England, and the aggregate external finance per head in Wales is £812, compared with £698 in England. That is an enormously important benefit for the Welsh economy and for Welsh local government. It should be recognised as such, and my right hon. Friend should be congratulated.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) addressed us with eloquence and passion, but I fear that in the exuberance of his passion he paused to cast unnecessary scorn upon quadratic equations. The curious feature of the debate among the critics has been an absence of any analytical critique of the way in which standard

spending assessments have been calculated. The method of calculation has an enormous effect on distribution, which affects each and every local authority in our constituencies.
I am probably more critical than many, but, there is an attempt to measure social and other needs, on analysis, and costs and to average out Government expenditure so that everybody receives a reasonable and fair share. Hon. Members have expressed the needs of their local authorities, but I am most surprised that critics of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have not aimed their fire at the basis of the system. Perhaps that is because it commands general support.
I welcome the second paper, which relates to capping. It is a matter of great regret that it is necessary, but Conservative Governments have or should have learnt from the experience of past years. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had a rating revaluation in 1963 and we lost a general election in 1964; we had a rating revaluation in 1973 and we lost a general election in 1974. That was largely because local authorities of another political persuasion proceeded to increase expenditure, exercising their local powers to do so. Indeed, we saw that strikingly with the poll tax in Gwent, when Gwent county council was elected in 1989 for four years. In its first year of poll tax, it showed very little reticence in raising the figure to unacceptable levels.
Local authorities cannot have it both ways. They spend an enormous proportion of public money. There must be some accountability to the Treasury for the burdens on the taxpayer and on the economy. At the same time, local authorities cannot escape responsibility for their spending decisions. It is all too easy to threaten cuts in the most essential, desirable and poignant services when a much more critical examination of how they run their affairs would be appropriate. I support both measures.

Mr. Roy Hughes: There appears to be a hidden agenda for Newport borough's finances and rate support grant settlement. Last Saturday morning, as I was thinking of getting ready to go to Cardiff for the international to witness the eclipse of England, I started to open my post. One of the first letters that I opened was from the Welsh Office. It informed me that the Secretary of State had accepted the findings of his inspector, Mr. R. Davies, following a public inquiry in October 1991 into the application by the American concern, Browning-Ferris Environmental Services Ltd., to build a waste disposal plant in the Lliswerry area of Newport.
That disgraceful decision was made by a Welsh Office Minister representing an English constituency. The findings on page 40, paragraph 9.226 of the report even seem to acknowledge that Newport in south Wales will be seen as a dustbin for the receipt of waste from all over the world. Page 41, paragraph 9.30 of that report points out that there is a risk of noticeable pollution, but that is qualified by stating that the risk is negligible.

Mr. Sweeney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That remark does not appear to be at all relevant to the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): So far as I can gather, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is talking about financial matters which fall within the general ambit of the debate.

Mr. Hughes: This matter will affect the finances of Newport borough council.
The public will rightly question whether the vapours pouring from the stack at the plant will be cancer-causing. That is a natural fear. What is not in dispute is the company's proposal. The report states:
The proposal would be a facility for the reception, storage and treatment of aqueous and oily wastes using a variety of well-established non-thermal treatment techniques, such as neutralization, oxidation, reduction, de-watering and chemical demulsification. The wastes would arise from the South-west Region and would include inorganic sludges and oily wastes from the automobile and steel industries…food wastes: usually classified into 4 waste types (a) sludges, (b) acidic wastes, (c) oily wastes and (d) other aqueous wastes requiring specialized handling or treatment.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the firm, Browing-Ferris, to which he referred has been taken to court in the United States, prosecuted and found guilty of breaking environmental legislation? Can he also confirm that Browing-Ferris has connections with the criminal world in the United States?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear to me that the hon. Member is starting to go wide of the financial implications. He must stick with that to remain in order.

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Smith) said. I shall make a brief reference to the point that he made.
I have outlined what I would call a nice cocktail which is close to a heavily built-up area. Then there is the record of the company involved. A while ago, Greenpeace sent me a dossier on Browning-Ferris. According to that dossier, toxic waste in the United States is closely linked with organised crime, and Browing-Ferris is right in the thick of it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Member is now going out of order. He must return to finance.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Obviously, my hon. Friend is raising a serious issue—the pollution which could be caused by the plant. Does he know whether Newport borough council, in preparing its estimates for the coming financial year, took into account all the extra work which would be required by the environmental health department and other Departments to police the plant? Those departments opposed the plant. More importantly, has the Welsh Office taken any account of that extra work in the money that it is giving to Newport?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend illustrates the point which I am trying to make. What if charges similar to those already made against the company were to happen in Newport? I shall give some examples. In 1984, in Williamsburg, Ohio, investigators charged that Browing-Ferris officials poured contaminated rain water directly into a tributary of local drinking water. In 1985, a grand jury indicted BFI, CECOS and their former employees on 96 counts of violations at the hazardous waste pits. There are many more examples of similar charges made against the company. Such charges certainly impinge directly on the finances of Newport borough council and the revenue support grant settlement. For example, there would be the cost of more environmental health officers and the need for extra police for such a questionable plant.
I have a letter dated 4 February from Mrs. C. R. Jones at the Welsh Office, authorised by the Secretary of State, to Messrs. Davis Llewellyn and Jones, chartered architects and town planners in Cardiff who act on behalf of Browing-Ferris. Mrs. C. R. Jones says:
A further letter will be sent to you in connection with your clients' claim for an award of costs against Newport Borough Council.
That is relevant to the financial aspect. In rejecting the company's application, the council was merely acting in line with the wishes of the town's charge payers. Their disquiet was expressed through mass meetings, an all-night vigil, petitions, and so forth. Where is the democracy in all that? Will the Welsh Office meet the cost of the public inquiry and so on?
There are many risks involved for farmers with cattle and agricultural products, and there is a traffic hazard in the conveyance of the waste matter. The council has gone out of its way to make Newport a more attractive place to live. At a stroke, that is all being put in jeopardy. Property values will drop and people will want to move out of the area. Are those matters not relevant to Newport borough council's finances and its revenue support grant settlement?
The decision will blight the whole of south Wales. Proud south Wales, which produced the coal that fuelled the industrial revolution, is now to be reduced to a dustbin for the receipt of waste from all over the world. The people of Newport do not want the plant, and neither does the council. This thoroughly undemocratic decision is an indictment of the Government and, more particularly, the present incumbent at the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State has failed to speak up for Wales. If he has any conscience left, he will resign.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On 12 November 1992, the Secretary of State set the scene for the current settlement. He said:
I consider my proposals to be realistic in the current economic climate. They give a level of settlement above predicted inflation.
For all I know, the Secretary of State might genuinely believe that. If he believes it, it is self-delusion on a grand scale. He also said:
I recognise that local government in Wales will have to make hard choices about spending priorities if authorities are to stay within my plans.
How right he was. That passage is an absolutely classic understatement.
The Secretary of State said that his capping criteria are designed to ensure that essential services are maintained and taxpayers are shielded from unreasonable levels of council tax. That is all laudable. However, the people of Wales are not reassured when they realise that those were the words of advice and direction of a member of a Government who were, at least notionally, at the helm during the stormy seas of Black Wednesday.
If the millions of pounds that were thrown away on a hopeless exercise were available to local services in Wales, we would be facing a much brighter future. As always, the Government say, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Earlier, when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was referring to the closure of rural schools, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West


(Mr. Richards) was grinning like a Cheshire cat. He can grin; he sends his child to a public school in England. That shows how much care and concern he has for Wales.

Mr. Richards: I point out to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that all three of my childen have gone to Ysgol Gymraeg Ynisgedwyn in Ystradgynlais.

Mr. Llwyd: Is there a child currently at an English public school?

Mr. Richards: There is a child currently at an English public school and there are still two children at Ysgol Gymraeg Ynisgedwyn primary school in Ystradgynlais.

Mr. Llwyd: The Meirionnydd district council and the Aberconwy district council are the two councils in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that councils largely agreed with his criteria. Unfortunately, those two councils are certainly not in agreement. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made the point earlier and I will not dwell on it. The point is well made and I support it.
In discussing the position of Meirionnydd district council, it may assist the House if I mention one or two facts. That council has strong misgivings about the use of standard spending assessments as anything other than a crude way of measuring need and, consequently, about their limited value as a method of determining the level of expenditure.
The formula for calculating the SSA is relatively simple and the number of factors contained in it are relatively few, but it can produce only a general answer. As we know, it affects not only the revenue support grant but the level of expenditure.
Tax capping is both undemocratic and damaging to the interests of the public. The 1993–94 settlement contains a permitted increase of only £59,000 in Meiriormydd's budget. That represents 1 per cent. Is that the only way to ensure adequacy of service? It certainly is not. It may save a few pounds here and there, but it will inevitably mean savage cuts in services. The net effect of the proposals will be to render the district council a mere puppet of central Government. That is in line with the thinking of the Tories, who wish to impose their will on Wales via the Welsh Office.
However, the councillors are at the sharp end. They have to face public disquiet about cuts imposed by this cowardly Government. Undoubtedly, the tax-capping proposals in Meirionnydd will result in a loss of jobs. I am told by officers of the council that there will be job losses of up to 8 per cent. in the non-manual work force. That is a savage and bitter blow to our local economy. Worse still, it is a blow which is entirely avoidable.
As a responsible authority, Meirionnydd raised the matter with the Secretary of State, only to receive a bland reply which was economic in content and negative in tone. I told the Secretary of State on 14 December in this Chamber that members of the local authority who visited him and his officers returned with an overwhelming feeling that the Welsh Office would not listen to them. Perhaps that is what the Welsh Office wants, but it is clearly not what my constituents and the people of Wales want. They all deserve better.
Aberconwy borough council tells me that the criteria will mean a cut in current spending plans of some £1 million. That will inevitably translate into lower levels of

service, job losses and the cancellation of capital schemes. The council will also have to look to reduce spending. That could affect jobs at the sharp end of service provision—for example, in parks, gardens, maintenance and so on.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Llywd: No. I am sorry, but I have limited time.
A major point to consider is that inevitably the level of available finance will be lower. That will cause the council serious problems in fulfilling its statutory duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and all that it entails, the Children Act 1989 and the care in the community provisions which are to be implemented soon.
In addition, the commutation of loans for improvements grants does not appear to reflect the inteution to be neutral on budgets. It is of the utmost importance to Aberconwy to ensure that the borough is attractive to tourists and visitors because much of the economy relies on tourism. The lower level of provision could easily affect the attractiveness of the area which, in turn, will affect hotels, guest houses and so on throughout the borough. Of course, residents will be adversely affected, too.
The serious problems that district councils face are almost nothing compared with the problems that county councils face. The way in which the SSAs are calculated means that the counties will lose £28 million this year. The county SSAs are set to rise by only 1.6 per cent. That is an average figure for Welsh counties; the figure for Gwynedd is only 0.4 per cent. The mere £35 million allowance for the introduction of care in the community represents nothing like the real cost.
It is disheartening to note that, during the debate on 12 February last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), among others, made a special plea to the Secretary of State for additional funding if care in the community was to be introduced with any confidence. Alas, those pleas and the pleas of others fell on deaf ears. It is evident from the current plans that the Government do not want to listen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said during the last Welsh Question Time, as a result of the capping criteria Gwynedd county council will have to cut £3 million from its standstill budget. That is not a measure which will ensure the provision of essential services.
Gwynedd county council has been hard at work in the past two years finding 3 per cent. cuts each year. Only recently it had to face the appalling prospect of closing a specialist home for the elderly infirm when it had no other place to house them. Thankfully, that cut was averted, but I keep thinking of that little boy with his thumb in the breached dyke. How long can the council hold on?
The highly professional team of officers and conscientious councillors in Gwynedd are desperately worried, and rightly so. They must now consider cuts in nursery education. Looming on the horizon we have the appalling spectre of wholesale closures of rural schools, with the consequent damage to countless communities, the culture and the language.
The people of my constituency have had enough. If ever there was an easy time to explain the need for a fully


accountable and powerful assembly in Wales, this is it. If the Government persist, they will pay for their callousness and folly at the next election.
I wish to raise two specific points. The first is the poundage rate for non-domestic rates in Wales. It is unrealistically high. It means that small businesses in my community and elsewhere are under continuous seige. The so-called party of small businesses is selling those businesses down the river in exactly the same way as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did 18 months ago. He pledged that the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments were safe in his hands, but now he wants to cut them by 26 per cent. They are the kind of Government with whom we are dealing. Why cannot the Government recognise the plight of small businesses and scrap the uniform business rate? In the short term, why do not the Government introduce a more equitable poundage?
The second specific point that I want to raise is the 12.5 per cent. non-collection factor used to arrive at the tax base rate. It is unrealistically low. That means that £261 for band D is too low. That should be revised as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State's pledge to maintain services at a reasonable cost is an empty platitude.
Support for the Tory party in Wales is at an all-time low. That is no wonder. The day of reckoning will soon be here when Tories disappear completely off the Welsh map. I look forward to that day in the interests of social justice and decency.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Paul Murphy.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When is it possible for representatives of the biggest county in Wales and the one most savagely affected by the cuts to participate in the debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: There is always a difficulty when more people seek to speak than it is possible to call in the time available.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I appreciate, even with an extended debate, the inevitability of the shortness of time for the important issues that have been raised. Certainly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about Mid Glamorgan will have been noted by the people in that county and in the Principality.
The debate highlights the constantly shifting sands of local government finance in Britain and Wales. The House should realise that the Conservatives have passed 152 Acts of Parliament affecting local government since they have been in office. Virtually every one of those measures adversely affected the functions and services offered by our councils, and virtually every one was opposed by the people of Wales.
The theme of the debate has been that the Conservative party has no mandate from the people of Wales to impose its will on the local authorities and their budgets. The Government have produced an unstable local government finance system. Within the short space of four years, the

people of Wales have gone from the rates to the poll tax and then to the council tax. The poll tax was abolished 355 days after it was introduced, yet the Conservative party lectures our local authorities about financial prudence.
The instability of the system, combined with its super-complexity—with talk of SSA, RSG, AEF and all the rest—have made it inevitable that there is no longer any public confidence in the local government finance system in Wales or England.
During the past few years, there has been tremendous uncertainty over the annual settlements in Wales, which—I am sorry to say—has been made worse by the constant dithering about local government reform. I understand that a report about the transitional costs of such reform has been placed in the Library today, and I am sure that that will not help Welsh councils.
Last year, the district councils were badly hit. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said that environmental health monitoring of chemical waste plants will be affected. In my constituency, the ReChem toxic waste plant was badly afected by cuts in district allocations last year.
This year, the county councils have been affected. Even though there have been quarrels over the so-called tier split, the Welsh district and county councils are united in their opposition to the settlement and disagree with their increasing lateness. Hon. Members will recall that, four or five years ago, we debated settlements as early as December or November, but it has got later every year. The authorities are also united in thinking that the business rate has been reduced for no apparent reason, which will cost local authorities millions of pounds.
The publication of the original figures that the local authorities received lacked care, and was sloppy and badly managed. The collapse of Municipal Mutual Insurance, which the Government did not aid, has meant that many councils have had to budget for increased insurance costs.
The settlement is inadequate; it follows the tradition of underfunding Welsh local government, which has led to the long-term neglect of our roads, schools and houses. One county treasurer said:
The settlement is the most severe imposed on county councils in recent years, and appears to be based on adherence to a formula which penalises budgetary prudence, and rewards those local authorities which paid least heed to Government guidelines in 1990–91.
The treasurer of Swansea district council said:
This is the worst settlement in my 12 years experience as Treasurer.
Both agree that the revenue settlement is at least £132 million short of what Welsh councils need.
The districts have come off better this year, with a 9 per cent. increase, but one third of all Welsh districts will have difficulty in setting their budgets; five have provisional increases of less than 2 per cent., and seven have increases of less than 5 per cent. Our two greatest towns, Cardiff and Swansea, coincidentally must make cuts of £3·5 million each.

Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State has been a little disingenuous when talking in terms of the district and county councils working together and coming to an agreement? In fact, he set out to pit one against the other. The suggestion that they would go along together is about as likely as putting two ferrets in a sack and getting them to kiss.

Mr. Murphy: My experience of ferrets is very limited, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the general principle.
When he opened the debate, the Secretary of State referred to local authority capital spending and said that it was up. That does not apply to the districts. There has been an 18 per cent. reduction in the districts' BCAs. The housing budget is down by 19 per cent. and other approvals by 37 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) pointed out.
The urban programme has been cut in Wales, and in England it has disappeared. All those reductions are a result of the fact that the Welsh Office wants extra money for European supplementary credit approvals. They have robbed our districts to pretend that they have additionality rules for our European moneys.
Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned capital receipts, which still need to be used. I know that they have been used for 1993, but we need a commitment today that their use will be extended until 1994 and beyond.
The Council of Welsh Districts also wants at least £200 million of the set-aside receipts in council coffers released during the next three years, because the districts have suffered a reduction of about 60 per cent. in capital money since 1990.
The capital budgets of Colwyn, Torfaen, Cynon Valley, Rhondda and Cardiff have all been substantially reduced. As most of my hon. Friends have said, Welsh county councils have been hit by massive revenue reductions. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) have all rightly referred to the fact that education—the largest part of local authority spending—has been decimated by the settlements. It is a great irony that I and some of my hon. Friends have spent the past three months in the Education Bill Committee, wasting our time talking about grant-maintained, opted-out schools and the rest of it. That is a supreme irrelevance to the provision of education for the people of Wales.
All that time wasted and all that money squandered, yet discretionary grants in Wales have been cut and cut again. Support for the Welsh language, peripatetic music services, the education psychology service and school building and maintenance systems have all been cut, at a time when people are beginning to understand that it is the provision of education services for young people in Wales that is important and not the pursuit of dogma and doctrine.
Social services are also suffering from the county council cuts. For example, Gwent has had to cut its toy library, playground equipment and child abuse publicity. The police have not escaped and there have been cuts in training, vehicle maintenance and operational equipment. In Gwent, my police authority, 13 police stations are threatened with closure. That is happening at a time when vigilante groups roam Wales and crime is on the increase.
All that affects our jobs, as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, since for every 10,000 jobs lost, £900 million is lost to the taxpayer. To deny job losses, as the Secretary of State and the Minister do, is to live in cloud cuckoo land —like their belief that the average band D council tax in Wales will be £262. It is more likely to be well over £300, and will range between £270 and £380.
Doubtless the Minister will say that he will not hesitate to use his capping powers, but this is the first time that capping criteria have been published for Wales. The former Secretary of State, Lord Walker, and the present Secretary of State have both said, in speech after speech in the House and in Wales, that there was a consensus in Wales between local authorities and the Welsh Office that there was no need for capping criteria to be laid down because, on balance, Welsh local authorities have had a responsible attitude towards spending and have been nothing like the examples given by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who was describing a totally different world. Why is it necessary to sour relations between local government and the Welsh Office by laying down unnecessary capping criteria?
The settlement does more than that. It is part of the Government's erosion of Welsh local democracy. Why can quangos get money at the drop of a hat? Contrast that with the impoverishment of our services and the adverse effects on the quality of Welsh life that will undoubtedly flow from the constant underfunding of Welsh local government and from the settlement in particular.
The Government cap our councils, cut off their finances and restrict their powers. At least we know that, despite that, our Welsh local authorities will continue to provide services to the people who elect them. They will protect those people from the dogmatic excesses of the Government and they still remain the best hope for effective and representative democracy in Wales. I urge the House to vote against the motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I rush to acknowledge the only point in the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) with which I could agree. I join him in congratulating the Welsh rugby team on its achievement on Saturday—at the very least 10–9 is a statistic on which none of us could disagree. I even welcome his suggestion that we might have further discussion about what happened on Saturday. I am sure that all hon. Members would find that more productive than today's debate.
If I was charitable, I would describe the standard of debate from the Opposition as, at best, wishful and typically negative—no new ideas, the same old sterile debate. The hon. Member for Caerphilly came out with his predictable wish list for spending. Of course he complained about the capping proposals, but it was most significant that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) asked him what he would do in the same situation, answer had he not. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) asked him what he would do about surplus places in schools, answer had he not.
Instead, the hon. Gentleman resorted to a ritual attack on what he chooses to describe as quangos. Such criticism is rich from a party that favours the ultimate quango, a Welsh assembly, which the people of Wales have rejected decisively. It is typical that the Labour party favours the introduction of such an assembly—another socialist, centralist body that would take powers away from local councils.
How quickly is the illusion of Bournemouth ripped away. The vain attempts to put a Clinton mask on the face of the Labour party is all as nothing 24 hours later. To put


it in a proper, or rather historical, context, Labour Members should be properly identified as the Bourbons of France—they learn nothing, they forget nothing. Little wonder that the editorial in the Western Mail—the national newspaper of Wales—after the general election acknowledged that the present Labour party was unelectable.
Despite the impression that some Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), seek to give, the economic difficulties we face are not confined to this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West pointed out, economic problems are experienced throughout the world. This is not the occasion, however, for a discourse on the state of the world economy; the House is well aware of the problems.
It would be irresponsible to set a settlement level that the country cannot afford. I find it difficult to reconcile arguments for a higher level of resources in the current circumstances and the concerns I have heard expressed about the possible level of the council tax in Wales. Opposition Members do not appear to appreciate that it is the taxpayer who must foot the bill for public expenditure. Fortunately, the Government appreciate that; that is why we have had to make the necessary decisions on public spending—decisions that affect central Government, too; it is not just local government that is having to face up to hard choices.
The settlement package that we propose gives local government an increase in resources above the rate of inflation, which continues to decline, before the £37.5 million additional resources that we are providing for care in community are taken into account. It gives local authorities scope to raise a higher proportion of revenue from local taxation. It should also keep council tax bills at reasonable levels.
The settlement provides a sound basis for the introduction of the council tax in April. Despite the gloomy prognostications of Opposition Members, the tax will be welcomed by the people of Wales, who will see it as a fair and balanced system of local taxation. Bills will be based on the valuation band of the property in question. Single-adult households will receive a 25 per cent. discount on their bills, and householders on income support will pay nothing. Those on low incomes will be eligible for council tax benefit. A range of other discounts and exemptions will also be available.
If local authorities budget in line with our plans, the majority of Welsh households will pay less than they did under the community charge, and subsequently less than they did under the old domestic rating system. The prophets of doom underestimate the Government's determination to see the new system work and the high degree of professionalism that local government in Wales will bring to its administration. Local authorities have invested an enormous amount of energy and effort in preparing the new tax. They are ready for 1 April and I commend them on their achievement.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) was naturally concerned about his own country, and he echoed the concern raised by the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) about care in the community. The hon. Member for

Clwyd, South-West rightly reminded us that Clwyd county council is receiving an additional £6.6 million for care in the community. That is part of a total increase in spending for care in the community which amounts to £35.9 million. That sum is not simply what the Department of Social Security would have spent—around £28 million: we have found an additional £8 million to cover the extra work involved.
The distribution of money for care in the community follows the existing patterns relating to Department of Social Security spending, but it also reflects the need to achieve more flexible forms of community care. Exceptionally, we will identify the amounts needed for care in the community in each county in Wales. I want to ensure that the situation is monitored to ensure that our desires are realised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor spoke movingly about outdoor centres, 10 of which are in his constituency. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many private conversations going on.

Mr. Jones: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thought that it was significant that my hon. Friend was able to observe that, out of the 10 outdoor centres, only one, owned and operated by South Glamorgan council, is threatened with closure—the other nine, which are owned by English or Welsh councils will continue to operate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, together with the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke about the provision of music education in South Glamorgan council. I was especially struck by a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Andrew Swift, to the Western Mail entitled "Silencing the Land of Song", in which he repeatedly asked what other services provided by South Glamorgan council would suffer the same level of cut as that to be imposed on the provision of music education. How can a cut of 90 per cent. in the provision of any service, particularly music education, be justified?

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. time is short, thanks to his hon. Friends.
If South Glamorgan council had said that a cut of between 1 and 5 per cent., or even slightly more, was intended, we might have understood, but to try to impose a 90 per cent. cut speaks volumes about the political party that is in control of that council. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would join me in condemning that council when one considers the advances that have been made in Cardiff and the way in which my party made St. David's hall possible. The facilities for the arts in Cardiff have been expanded, but now music provision is being subject to a disgraceful attack, which is a source of great regret to me.
South Glamorgan council has until the end of this month to finalise its budget, and I imagine that it will set a budget in the region of £272 million. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth shares my hope that it will listen to all the expressions of opinion about the provision of music education in South Glamorgan. I hope that that council will yet change its mind and reverse the planned 90 per cent. cut.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to a case concerning Miss J. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot discuss that case now, but if he would care to write to me, I shall certainly pursue it on his behalf. I was drawn by his oratory, which reminded us of his expertise in the courts—after all, he is one of Her Majesty's counsel. How he managed to weave into his argument references to foreplay and quadratic equations was not readily understandable until he told us that an expert in such equations was sitting behind him, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I hope that that hon. Gentleman will forgive me, for I had thought that his expertise related to railway timetables.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West reminded us to Labour's deplorable public expenditure record, both past and present. He made a strong case for the many deserving local causes for which he would advocate council funding. I was disturbed by the admittedly alarmist observation by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central that people would die. I have checked with Welsh Office officials, and have found no such representations that have been made to us, in any such terms, by any council in Wales. I fear that the hon. Gentleman will wish to reflect on his ill-judged comments, and on his sweeping condemnation of everyone involved in Welsh local government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) was right to remind us that we must get a grip on spending. He pointed out that the most obvious consequence of uncontrolled spending would be the burden of increased job losses——

It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [29 January].

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 239.

Division No. 142]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butler, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashby, David
Carrington, Matthew


Aspinwall, Jack
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Baldry, Tony
Churchill, Mr


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clappison, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bates, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Batiste, Spencer
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Coe, Sebastian


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Congdon, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, Andrew
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowis, John
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Brandreth, Gyles
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Deva, Nirj Joseph





Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Legg, Barry


Elletson, Harold
Leigh, Edward


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lidington, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew


Fishburn, Dudley
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Major, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Fry, Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gill, Christopher
Milligan, Stephen


Gillan, Cheryl
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Needham, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pickles, Eric


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom






Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tredinnick, David


Shersby, Michael
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Speed, Sir Keith
Walden, George


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stephen, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wilkinson, John


Sumberg, David
Willetts, David


Sweeney, Walter
Wilshire, David


Sykes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. James Arbuthnot.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corston, Ms Jean


Armstrong, Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Cox, Tom


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Beckett, Margaret
Dafis, Cynog


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blair, Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Boyce, Jimmy
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyes, Roland
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Burden, Richard
Enright, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Etherington, Bill


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Foulkes, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fraser, John


Clapham, Michael
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gapes, Mike





Garrett, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


George, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gerrard, Neil
Morgan, Rhodri


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gould, Bryan
Mullin, Chris


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gunnell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hain, Peter
Olner, William


Hall, Mike
O'Neill, Martin


Hanson, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Harvey, Nick
Pickthall, Colin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Pope, Greg


Heppell, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoey, Kate
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Purchase, Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hutton, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Ingram, Adam
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rogers, Allan


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jamieson, David
Rowlands, Ted


Janner, Greville
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Simpson, Alan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Skinner, Dennis


Jowell, Tessa
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Keen, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Soley, Clive


Khabra, Piara S.
Spearing, Nigel


Kilfoyle, Peter
Spellar, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Leighton, Ron
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Terry
Stott, Roger


Litherland, Robert
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Livingstone, Ken
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tipping, Paddy


Loyden, Eddie
Turner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Tyler, Paul


McAllion, John
Vaz, Keith


McCartney, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Macdonald, Calum
Wallace, James


McFall, John
Walley, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McMaster, Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm


McNamara, Kevin
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


McWilliam, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mahon, Alice
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mandelson, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wise, Audrey


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wright, Dr Tony


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Miller, Andrew
Mr. Thomas McAyoy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 412), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining motion on local government finance ( Wales).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notions Amounts) Report (Wales) 1993–1994 (House of Commons Paper No. 413), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

British Railways (No. 4) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I put down a blocking motion to this Bill, but I have since withdrawn it, having been given assurances by British Rail that the parts of it to which I objected would be withdrawn. The Bill before us, however, still contains those parts, although a statement has been issued to the effect that British Rail will no longer pursue the parts of the Bill in question—work No. 1 and work No. 1A. I should like assurances that, if the Bill is passed, those works will not be put back in the Bill if it reaches Committee. Can the Chair reassure me about that?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am afraid that the Chair is not in a position to give any such assurances. Second Reading must take its course, whereupon alterations can be made at the Committee stage.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not extraordinary that the House should be invited on Second Reading to consider the Bill in this form while we have in our hands a statement from the promoters to the effect that certain clauses will immediately be removed from the Bill once it has been given a Second Reading? Surely the promoters have a duty to present the House with a Bill all of whose provisions they want enacted. It is rather insulting to the House to take up its valuable time in this way when the promoters have said—last Friday—that the Bill which will ultimately be enacted will be different from the one presented to us today.
In my time, I have brought one or two private Bills to the House. Had I told the House before one such Bill had even been debated that by the time it received Royal Assent it would be quite different from its appearance on Second Reading, that would have been regarded as an abuse of the private Bill procedure. I therefore submit that there is a case for reintroducing the Bill in the form that the promoters want.

Madam Deputy Speaker: If it is an insult, I gather that it is an insult which happens from time to time with private Bills. This is not a matter over which I as the representative of the Speaker, have any control. The Bill must be allowed to take its course; no doubt those points can be made in the course of Second Reading.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is worth noting that what the promoters say in the letter in question is that the part of the Bill which would allow more imports of coal will be taken out. I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were correct to say that this is not an unusual method. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) knows only too well that when a private Bill to allow the importation of coal came before the House on another occasion he seemed quite happy with changes to it being nodded through.
I hope that the promoters in this case will carry out what they have promised. I am pleased that my hon.


Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) has placed the matter on record so as to ensure, if the Bill reaches Committee, that it has been made clear in the House right at the outset that we expect the promoters to honour their agreement not to implement the part of the Bill which would allow more imports of coal to Britain.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think we must now move on to the Second Reading itself.

Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Although there is nothing unusual in the processes that we are discussing, in a few moments' time I should be able to give assurances which will satisfy those hon. Members who have raised points of order.
The Bill, which has 37 clauses, was deposited in January last year, so it has had a fairly lengthy gestation. It is short and uncontroversial, but its provisions are important not only to enable British Rail or any successor body to operate a safe and reliable railway but to enable the efficient use of land by others by better integrating the railway with adjoining land uses. I shall explain the Bill's main provisions.
When the Bill reaches Committee, British Rail will seek to withdraw works Nos. 1 and 1A and all associated provisions in the Bill. These were originally included to facilitate the carriage of imported coal from a deep sea port at Immingham to power stations in the Aire valley. However, the scheme for the coal terminal was abandoned and the needs of BR's customers no longer dictate those provisions. I hope that that assurance satisfies the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes).
The promoters will also seek powers to withdraw clause 24 and associated provisions relating to a replacement car park at Macclesfield. The clause was included in the Bill to obtain land consequent upon the loss of existing car park capacity at Macclesfield station. However, the land in question is subject to the Macclesfield Inclosure Act 1796, which authorises the holding fairs. In view of that factor and Macclesfield borough council's representations, the board has agreed not to pursue the clause and to withdraw its provisions. Over the past few days, considerable interest has been expressed in the Macclesfield Inclosure Act. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has a copy to hand. I am sure that he will be disappointed to learn that clause 24 is to be withdrawn in Committee.
Work No. 2 is to allow the diversion of approximately half a mile of the line between Cardiff and Aberdare through Mountain Ash on the south-east of Town bridge. This proposal originates from the Mountain Ash development study, jointly commissioned by the Welsh Development Agency, Mid Glamorgan county council and Cynon Valley borough council, and examines ways of revitalising the town centre.
The study concluded that, with a series of road works, river straightening, a sewer diversion, and the diversion of the railway, there would be an area of land suitable for redevelopment. The council has already obtained planning permission for those works, which have the backing of the Welsh Development Agency and the co-operation of the

National Rivers Authority and all the other undertakers involved. It now awaits only the railway diversion to complete the necessary authorisations for the project. The development project at Mountain Ash hinges on the railway diversion taking place and, if the British Railways Board is not granted those powers, the project may fall. The entire project, including the costs of diverting the railway line, are to be met by Cynon Valley borough council and the Welsh Development Agency.
The remainder of the Bill is mainly concerned with infrastructure operations and land use. Those include the closure of a bridge to road traffic at Hunslet East, Leeds. This follows Leeds city council's stopping up of Fewston avenue over the freight line between Osmondthorpe and Stourton to proceed with a residential development. The closure of this bridge is sought to prevent fly tipping and other unauthorised usage. The western footway over the bridge will be retained for the use of pedestrians.
Another provision concerns the closure of Wheal Bois level crossing, Redruth, over the main London to Penzance line. This is a scarcely used route. I understand that there is only one regular vehicle user on the route and its closure is sought on safety grounds. A foot crossing will be retained for pedestrians.
The closure of a private roadway over a bridge near Hartford beach, Cheshire, is also included. This closure is sought as the structure is in need of expensive repairs. The bridge was originally built to provide vehicular access but it is no longer used for this purpose. The access over the bridge is not a public right of way and is reduced to a little used and unsuitable means of passage for pedestrians.
The Bill provides for the purchase of land at Ranskill in the district of Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire. This is to enable land to be used for a passing loop to carry the longer freight trains which will use this line after the opening of the channel tunnel. Without these passing loops the channel tunnel freight trains would need to be held farther south, thereby causing delay to this traffic. This, in turn, would mean that the board would not be able to offer as good a service to businesses in the north wishing to take full advantage of the economic opportunities that will be available when the channel tunnel opens.
A further provision relates to the purchase and temporary use of land to permit the strengthening of the railway embarkment at Brigg, on the Gainsborough to Grimsby line. British Rail proposes the construction of a berm along the embankment between the old and new Ancholme rivers. This is considered a desirable improvement to an embankment which has had a history of instability. On either side are two sites which have been earmarked for development and can only benefit from improved arrangements. While the local authority has expressed various concerns about these works, these are directed to matters of detail and not to the desirability of the works themselves.

Mr. Michael Brown: What sort of traffic does British Rail think will use that railway line? Why is BR prepared to invest so much of its additional resources from its limited budget on those two works? My hon. Friend said that the British Railways Board does not intend to proceed with the new chord line which, in conjunction with the works at Brigg, would have made sense because it would have provided a through service for freight traffic from Immingham to Sheffield and beyond. If the chord line at Shaftholme is withdrawn from the Bill, why is it necessary


for British Rail to spend money on the works at Brigg? I cannot imagine what kind of traffic will use that line as a result of the improvements.

Mr. Waller: I have said that the embankment has a history of instability and that the reason for carrying out the works is that, essentially, two sites are earmarked for development on either side. This would be an appropriate time to improve the embankment to prevent further instability. We must bear in mind the fact that those developments may take place at some time in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose——

Mr. Waller: It might be helpful if I were allowed to continue with my speech. I may be able to satisfy my hon. Friend after he has dealt with this point in his speech.

Mr. Brown: The Bill directly affects my constituency and I should like my hon. Friend to appreciate the importance of the works to my constituency. My constituents, especially in Brigg, are anxious to pose some questions. They want to know how it is that, today, on 8 February 1993—just three years after British Rail proposed to close the line from Brigg to Gainsborough, until my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and I created a rumpus which caused BR to think better of it—it suddenly and miraculously proposes to spend so much money on these works.

Mr. Waller: I am surprised that my hon. Friend is complaining about the fact that the line is not being closed. His usual practice is to complain that a line is being used less well than he thinks it deserves. The embankment has a 25-year history of instability and there have been several major slippings. As the remedial works which have been undertaken have not proved successful, it would seem natural to repair the line by improving the embankment. To do so it is necessary to acquire a certain amount of land which is not within the ownership of British Rail. That requires the provisions of the Bill, and that is why it is included in it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Once the embankment has been improved, the speed limit of 30 mph can be raised to 70 mph, which might provide British Rail with a good route to coastal resorts and thus garner traffic from further afield. Would that not ensure the future of the railway rather than placing a question mark over it?

Mr. Waller: It is true that there is a severe speed limit restriction along the line which, as British Rail wishes to provide a good service to its customers, it would be sensible to avoid. That is another good reason why British Rail wishes to proceed with the works.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: How much time will be saved if the Bill is passed? The statement from British Rail says that speed will be reduced from 75 mph to 30 mph, so how much time will be made up?

Mr. Waller: I cannot say exactly how much time will be made up, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be an improvement to the service. It may be that, before the end of the debate, I shall be able to provide him with more detailed information about the timetable improvements which may be made. Glanford borough council has

expressed concern about the works, but BR is in discussion with it and is confident that the problems can be settled satisfactorily.
The last main provision in the Bill concerns the temporary use of land at Queen Adelaide way, Station road, to allow the improvement of a superstructure bridge over the Great Ouse at Ely, Cambridgeshire. With electrification of the line to King's Lynn completed, the bridge, which has a 20 mph speed restriction, is now over-stressed for traffic requirements on the line. The remaining clauses are standard to all private Bills introduced by British Rail and I am sure that the House is familiar with them.
It should be remembered that the Bill was introduced as part of British Rail's continuing efforts to maintain the railway networks, with due regard to economy, efficiency and safety. Regardless of ownership, our railways must be allowed to develop, with improvement of the services provided. The Bill does not form part of the proposed privatisation of the industry nor set up powers for matters other than important operational purposes. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to enable its provisions to receive early consideration in Committee.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): It may be helpful if I intervene now to give the House the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the railways board. The Department has no points outstanding on the Bill.
It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers that they are seeking are justified. The Committee will be held in a better position than we are tonight to examine the Bill in detail. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.

Mr. Keith Mans: Can my hon. Friend give us any idea of the Government's view on the increase in speed that the Bill will allow on the Gainsborough to Grimsby section? Have they taken into account the effect on people living close to the line of the increased noise that will result, just as we take such considerations into account when debating road and air transport?

Mr. Norris: I had hoped to gallop through the last sentence of the most anodyne statement that I have ever made to the House without interruption, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in preventing me from doing that. I know that the matters that he raises are important to him, but they are matters better raised in the Committee, where they can be given the thorough airing that they need. If that satisfies my hon. Friend, or, frankly, even if it does not, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed to Committee in the usual conventional way for the detailed consideration that he obviously believes that it needs.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I offer the support of the Opposition for the Bill. It is an historical oddity that such a minor Bill, dealing with relatively minor works, has to come before Parliament. We do not debate such Bills in respect of any other form of transport. The important point is that several of the measures proposed in


it are aimed at improving safety. Anybody who stands in the way of such measures because of the issues that are, at best, peripheral to the substance of the Bill carries a heavy responsibility.
Nothing in the Bill is contentious. I hope that it receives its Second Reading. I only regret that we have to play out this farce for the next two and a half hours before we find whether there are 100 Members of Parliament to vote on it.

Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a somewhat odd point. I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to ask a question about noise. That was a serious intervention, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not considered what effect trains travelling at 75 mph rather than 30 mph between Gainsborough and Grimsby will have on people living close by.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that none of the owners or occupiers along that part of the line has petitioned against the Bill. I suspect that all of them know more about it than I do and definitely more than he does.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that, on many occasions when we have debated travel, not only by train but by motor car or air, we have found that people who have become affected by the actions of an airline or by the building of a new road did not petition at the time. Perhaps they did not know the consequences of the action taken by the authority or the company concerned and did not understand the effect there would be on noise levels.
There has been no study of the possible increase in noise resulting from the Bill. Despite the fact that not many people may have complained about the noise level, a train travelling at 75 mph rather than at 30 mph must have an effect on the people who live close by. Furthermore, at the moment only three trains a day travel on that track, and the implication is that a number of extra trains will travel along it at a much higher speed.
Given the cost of the measure, and the works done to the line to increase the speed, I hope that British Rail has fully taken into account the alternative—I would suggest, better—uses that can be made of any money that it might decide to spend on that part of the track.
I can give an example of why I feel that British Rail is misusing public money by improving that piece of track. I come from a part of the country, Fylde, which has been affected by the axing of the direct line from Euston to Blackpool. The train stops at Preston and people have to get on another train to travel to Blackpool. It was decided that it was not a good use of public money to have a direct service from Euston to Blackpool. It has been determined that that service is too expensive and that it is better for it to stop at Preston, where it is necessary to leave one train for a far inferior one to travel on to Blackpool. When examining the use to which public money is put, we must scrutinise carefully whether British Rail has it right.
If the Bill makes its way to consideration in Committee, I hope that it will be examined in great detail over a fairly lengthy period. Even tonight, however, we should spend a

few minutes considering noise, the proposed extra speed and the cost to the public purse of making the proposed changes.
I have a reasonably good track record on environmental matters. Over the past six years. I have introduced four Bills relating to such considerations. We shall have increasingly to consider the environment when we decide what sort of rail, road or other transport infrastructure we are to have. Not for the first time, I do not believe that British Rail has given close enough attention to environmental matters in producing its proposals.
The original link between the channel tunnel and London is an example of British Rail's having failed to take into account the consequences of its suggestions. Despite extensive work—probably at great expense to the public purse—it managed to put the route straight through a new housing estate. Surely any reasonable man would consider that a most unreasonable thing to do. If the proposal had come to fruition, it would have caused considerable inconvenience, including noise, to those living on the estate. Environmental considerations should be given a full hearing when British Rail decides that it wants to proceed with new measures or schemes.
In another context, we hear repeatedly of the problems that are caused by heavy lorries. An area of transportation with which I am relatively familiar is aviation. A proposal that there should be one extra flight into Heathrow, for instance, would lead to an insistence on a huge number of environmental assessments. Huge sums—rightly, in my view—would be spent to ascertain whether the extra flight would have an effect on the everyday lives of those living close to the airport. The same principle should apply to those who live close to a road or, in this instance, close to a railway line.
Noise and the environment generally should receive close attention in the context of the proposals in the Bill. If such matters are not discussed reasonably fully this evening, or if they are not given a good airing in Committee, it will be necessary to return to them at a later stage. That means that British Rail may once again have to scrap its original proposals and think of a better way of achieving what it desires.
I have great doubts whether the measure is needed. What are the real benefits of increasing the speeds of trains from 30 mph to 75 mph along a particular piece of track? If the necessary money is available for what is proposed, I think that it could be better spent elsewhere. For example, we could return to the direct service between Euston and Blackpool, which my constituents and I enjoyed until September. It is vital that the environment receives close attention when we come to consider this measure in greater detail.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that there is nothing in the Bill that should divide us. That may or may not be so, but I am concerned with what is missing from the Bill. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) talked about efficiency, economy and safety, which stem from clause 1. I referred to the second edition of the "Oxford English Dictionary" before I entered the Chamber. Efficiency is described as an "operative agent" or "efficient cause". It seems that it is now used in that way only in a philosophical sense. That is fairly appropriate.
The dictionary definition of economy refers to rules that control a person's of living. That is right as well. What is safety? I found that it is the state of being safe. It is exemption from "hurt or injury" and "freedom from danger".
We have received a supporting statement from British Rail. It states:
A Petition from the Glanford Borough Council complains about the purchase of land by the Board which is required in order to strengthen the embankment at Brigg carrying the railway between Gainsborough and Grimsby. The state of this embankment is such that traffic is forced to reduce speed from 75 mph to under 30 mph with the result that services take longer to reach their destination thereby causing delay and inconvenience to the Board's customers.
I have no doubt that that is the position.
I have a letter from Mr. Aidan Nelson, the director of the north-east region. He wrote as a result of the withdrawal of the stop at Rotherham on the route which goes through to Cleethorpes. He wrote:
Thank you for your recent telephone call to our Parliamentary Affairs Manager at Euston about the stopping pattern of the new Manchester-Cleethorpes service. I am replying, since Rotherham comes within my area of responsibility.
In setting up the revised train service which has applied since 11 May, we have considered very carefully how Rotherham should be served. The introduction of a semi-fast through service between Manchester and Cleethorpes was achieved by separating the local stopping service between Sheffield and Doncaster from the longer distance trains—the previous Sheffield-Cleethorpes service having called at all stations over this section of line. As a result of this, at most times of the day the frequency of trains at Rotherham has not changed significantly, although the through facility to stations east of Doncaster is now much reduced.
We did, in fact, give serious thought to the inclusion of a Rotherham stop in the Manchester-Cleethorpes service, but reluctantly reached the conclusion that this could not be achieved without either significant additional costs or detriment to customers elsewhere on the network.
I suggest that the Bill offers an opportunity to put that decision right so as not to inconvenience other customers on the network as well as those of my constituents who are customers in the Rotherham area. Mr. Nelson continues:
Moreover, an additional six or seven minutes would be added to the journey time, which with less than 20 minutes turnround time at both Manchester and Cleethorpes does not allow sufficient time for servicing trains adequately.
That turns on the point made by the hon. Member for Keighley. If the seven or eight minutes that could be saved is taken in conjunction with stopping time, the train could surely be allowed to stop at Rotherham and thereby service the people I represent.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman might like to point out to British Rail, in support of his argument, that many of his constituents have traditionally taken their holidays at Cleethorpes, and continue to do so. One of the original reasons for the line passing through Rotherham, particularly in the earlier part of the century, was to offer people the opportunity to get to the east coast quickly by public transport. The ho. Gentleman has the support of not only Glanford borough council but Cleethorpes borough council, because we are delighted when his constituents visit Cleethorpes. If the train were to stop in Rotherham, many of his constituents would be able to enjoy the delights of Cleethorpes in the summer and even perhaps the colder months, and we welcome people from that part of the world——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is a very long intervention.

Mr. Boyce: I agree that it was a long intervention, but it was very relevant. It has become a tradition for my constituents to hop on a train in Rotherham and spend their holidays in Cleethorpes. Manchester also suffers under the Bill, because instead of catching a direct train passengers will have to change at Sheffield.
One of the more comforting points in Mr. Nelson's letter says:
Meanwhile we firmly believe the introduction of the Manchester to Cleethorpes service does benefit Rotherham residents, in that interchange into these trains is readily available at both Meadowhall and Doncaster".
That is no benefit to a single parent who is trying to get perhaps three or four children on to a train.
Earlier in its letter, the board mentioned efficiency. Whose efficiency and whose safety is it talking about? What economies is it talking about—economies of time, of money or of efficiency? I have no idea, because it does not define efficiency. It certainly is not an efficient mode of travel when it comes to taking a wheelchair or perhaps a couple of upset, screaming kids off and on a train.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly good point about British Rail's claim that changing trains improves efficiency. I alluded earlier to the west coast, where the same has happened. Someone travelling from London to the premier tourist resort in Europe—Blackpool—has to stop at Preston, take all the children out of the train——

Mr. Michael Brown: And miss their connection.

Mr. Mans: Exactly. As my hon. Friend says, it is easy to miss the connection at Preston, because passengers have to move three platforms and, as a result, they often miss their connection. The point that I am making is that it is nonsense to suggest that making passengers change trains leads to a more efficient service.

Mr. Boyce: I agree entirely. How can it be efficient to stop and swap, rather than carry on through? I am sure that people in Blackpool will be as annoyed as people in Cleethorpes—and rightly so.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: My hon. Friend is talking about efficiency. I am sure that he will agree that these days efficiency seems to mean close it down, move it somewhere else or wind everything down. I am sure that he will agree that the word "efficiency" is misused. I know that many of my constituents have travelled on the line to Cleethorpes to have a good summer holiday—and still do so; the traditional holiday is not dead. I am sure that many of my constituents in Doncaster, North miss meeting their friends from Rotherham and joining them in their holidays at Cleethorpes.

Mr. Boyce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the friendship that exists between our constituents.
The British Railways Board says that it wants to run an efficient service, but on 17 June 1992 it told me that my constituents are well served because they travel to Meadowhall
by car and local bus as well as rail.
My constituents either have to have a car or get all their kids on to a bus, off the bus again at the railway station


and on to train, up the stairs, down the stairs and in my lady's chamber. I say that because it appears to be directing the people of Rotherham in every which way.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same problem applies with even greater force to disabled travellers? Disabled visitors to Blackpool, South will have to change at Preston station —I have no doubt that disabled passengers will experience the same problems at Meadowhall—which increases inconvenience for them.

Mr. Boyce: I was going to deal with that extremely important point later, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to it now. It is of the utmost importance that disabled people have access with the minimum of inconvenience.
Meadowhall is perhaps the largest shopping complex in the country. Many people shop there—I wish it well; I have no reason to wish it otherwise—but it is served very well. It has 12,000 parking spaces. Almost every bus that leaves Sheffield heading in that general direction stops at Meadowhall. Almost every train heading in the direction of Rotherham stops at Meadowhall. Why cannot the Manchester to Cleethorpes line miss Meadowhall and stop at Rotherham? I have not received a satisfactory answer from the board on that point.
I return to the suggested time saving of eight or nine minutes. Could not the board use that time to allow the train to stop at Rotherham Central? The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) makes a different objection from me about additional noise, but could not that disbenefit, which certainly exists, benefit somebody else, such as my constituents in Rotherham?

Mr. Mans: I do not want to mislead the House or the hon. Gentleman. In the end, there may be a benefit to travellers if the stipulations in the Bill are enacted. I was trying to say that before we proceed with the measure, it is important to take into account the effect on the environment. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: after we have carried out the appropriate environmental impact study and all the other devices that we now associate with environmental improvement, the result might be that, on balance, it would be a good idea to go ahead, thus bringing some benefits to travellers.
I would not want the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret the qualifications of my support for the Bill on environmental grounds. After the studies have been carried out, we might be able to proceed, but the studies have not been carried out and from the response that I received from the Minister——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an excessively long intervention.

Mr. Boyce: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I did not intend to misquote, him. There may be a disbenefit, but could it not be turned into a benefit elsewhere?
Mr. Nelson's letter states:
A key constraint in serving Rotherham is the fact that to reach Rotherham Central station, trains must pass over the Holmes chord line, which is a section of single track to the Sheffield side of the station. This currently is used by at least three trains per hour in each direction, and if we were to add to this number there is a real risk that congestion would occur, with consequent delays to all services.

I can readily accept that.
The letter further explains that, with the good offices of the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, Regional Railways is discussing
how services can be improved and developed in the years ahead—although unfortunately the PTE have intimated to us that it is unlikely in the foreseeable future they could afford conversion of the Holmes Chord to double track, which would undoubtedly do much to facilitate better services.
However, the Bill states that almost as much money as is necessary will be forthcoming. For example, clause 9(3) states:
Any person who suffers loss by reason of the extinguishment under this section of any private right shall be entitled to be paid by the Board compensation, to be determined in case of dispute by the tribunal.
That is all very well and good, but what about the people who are being disadvantaged, the general public who have no right of redress under the Bill? Almost any clause specifies the spending of money, yet there is no money to spend on the improvements to the track which are necessary to stop the inconvenience to the people of Rotherham.
Like the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), I hope that the Bill as drafted will not receive a Second Reading. The board should make a new statement about its intentions, rather than trying to amend the Bill in an ad hoc manner. Until or unless a stop is included at Rotherham, I have no alternative but to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am worried about the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). He described the parliamentary scrutiny of the measure as purely an historic oddity. I believe that parliamentary scrutiny of all railway measures is very important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said, it gives hon. Members the opportunity to question whether British Rail management is spending taxpayers' money in the right way.
I am worried about some aspects of the Bill. Following the comments made by hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, it seems that public money could be much better spent than is suggested by British Rail in the Bill. I agree with much of what many hon. Members have said. There is a commonality of purpose between the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) and the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on the importance of the sensible spending of public money on rail lines, especially when it involves those used by people visiting holiday resorts.
Several hon. Members, including my Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) have spoken about the line that will affect people travelling from Yorkshire to Cleethorpes. It is clear to us all that travellers from Yorkshire may decide to go to east coast or west coast resorts. Hon. Members will agree that there has always been a tremendous amount of tourism from Rotherham and Doncaster to my constituency of Blackpool, as there has been to Cleethorpes in my hon. Friend's constituency. The issues affecting travel to our two resorts are exactly the same.
British Rail has a particularly poor record of mismanagement of cross-country—east-west—services the length of the country. I am thinking in particular of the


closure of the Oxford-Cambridge line: the Cambridge-Bedford section was closed entirely, and another part, the Oxford-Bletchley section, was kept open only for freight. The only part left for passenger as well as for freight was the Bletchley-Bedford line. First, the link was reduced, and then it became of no use at all. That is an example of an east-west rail link which was chronically mismanaged.
It is perhaps the worst example of a closure following the Beeching report. It later became clear that the figures had been fiddled to make the economic case that there was no reason to keep the line open. If the Bill is not scrutinised carefully, we run the risk that that will happen again.
I am especially concerned that constituents of the hon. Members for Doncaster, North and for Rotherham who wish to go to Cleethorpes or to Blackpool should be able to do so without having to make an inconvenient change of train. They should not have to change an inconvenient change of train. They should not have to change trains at Meadowhall, which the hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned, or at Preston, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre mentioned. There is often a problem of changing platforms or of insufficient links, especially for disabled passengers. That is particularly so at Preston, where there are flights of steps.
British Rail closed the direct link to my constituency. Incidentally, I travelled on the last through train because I wanted to see what a valuable service was being lost. I use the line most weeks, twice a week. I am very concerned that opportunities for holidaymakers to go to the biggest holiday resort in Europe—about 15 million visitor stays each year mdhas;hare being reduced.
People who campaign for the disabled are worried that, months after the direct line was withdrawn, there were still no proper facilities at Preston for people in wheelchairs to get from the main line platform to the branch platform from which British Rail are now proposing to run the train. Not only are there insufficient links between platforms, especially for disabled people, but the trains now being run for the link from Preston to Blackpool do not have sufficient luggage-carrying capacity. They are not suitable for holidaymakers, whereas the previous through trains were mainline trains on which holidaymakers could travel easily, and on which there were facilities for wheelchair users.
If the Bill is not carefully scrutinised, the same problem will apply for holidaymakers travelling from the constituencies of Opposition Members in South Yorkshire to Cleethorpes in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. I urge Opposition Members to continue to press the concerns that they have expressed this evening. I share those concerns. The experience of my constituents and of people visiting my constituency over the months since the direct link was lost has been that British Rail management have not been sensitive to their needs. I very much fear that the Bill will lead to the same problem.
I have relatives in Yorkshire who want to be able to travel to Blackpool and to Cleethorpes on through trains. It is of great concern that historic tourist routes are being damaged by the insensitive British Rail management.
There is considerable concern about some clauses. Clause 19 especially relates to the north-west, where my constituency lies. The clause makes provision for stopping up a length of road which is British Railways Board property. It is carried by accommodation bridge number 127 over the Altrincham-Chester railway near Hartford

Beach. We know from paragraph 5 of the statement on behalf of the promoters that petitions were deposited by individuals who complained about the stopping up of the bridge under clause 19. It is pointed out that the bridge
was originally provided as an accommodation structure for the benefit of owners of certain land on one side of the bridge. It is now gated and unused by vehicular traffic, and is seldom used by pedestrians.
"Seldom used" does not mean that it is never used.
The House must be extremely cautious about accepting the promises made by British Rail. So often when it has been charged as a public body to look after the rail transport needs of the country, it has taken a cavalier attitude to the interests of those who live near the railway and who wish to cross it. That point is of especial concern to me, because over many years I have seen the cavalier attitude in practice.
Bridges have been torn down although people still want to use them, especially because of the speed at which trains now travel. With the safety aspects of crossing railways, it is a cause for great concern that British Rail proposes to get rid of a bridge that has been protected by Act of Parliament, although it cannot say that no one uses the bridge any more.
In paragraph 5, the promoters say that those who use the bridge
would not appear to be among the limited number of people who are entitled to do so.
It is of great concern that British Rail uses words such as would not appear to be".
One wonders to what extent British Rail has checked that point.
British Rail says:
The structure of the bridge is such that it is in need of considerable repair but the costs of necessary maintenance and the consequent disruption to the railway are such that the money would be betteer used to demolish the bridge.
"Better used to demolish"—once again, that shows the mentality so often exhibited by people in British Rail. They would rather close things than reopen them, and they would rather demolish things than ensure that a service is provided to the public. My concern is clearly shared by hon. Members of all parties.
I am especially anxious that British Rail should be made to understand that it is its responsibility to market its services imaginatively, to provide a service that the public want to use and to ensure that as much freight as possible is transferred from road to rail. As many of the lines that are dealt with in the Bill carry freight, we need to consider the prospects for rail freight.
It is a matter of enormous concern not only to me and to other hon. Members, but to millions of our constituents that far too much freight is carried by road, with the consequent environmental damage from heavy lorries. When we consider a British Rail private measure, we need to check carefully that the maximum possible scope is given to British Rail to ensure that the maximum amount of freight is transported by rail rather than by heavy lorries.

Mr. John Prescott: Last week, the hon. Gentleman voted to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill. Whenever rail policy is debated in the House, an 8 per cent. rate of return is imposed for rail freight. No other transport body has such an onerous obligation. It has led to a number of companies, which


used to transport thousands of lorryloads by rail, putting their freight on the roads. That is a result of Government policy and not of British Rail management policy.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I have a long record of speaking on railways which dates back over many years, long before I came to the House. He knows that I have consistently called for more freight to be taken off the roads and put on the railways. I have been a member of groups calling for that for many years. The debate so far has not been a matter of party political controversy. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has raised the point, and I am grateful for the opportunity to deal with it.
The hon. Member must be aware that his policy has been simply to ask the Government to write a blank cheque with taxpayers' money to subsidise rail freight. I call for a more level playing field between road freight and rail freight. If he asks me, for example, whether I support the greater use of environmental taxation to ensure that rail freight has the opportunity to compete, I tell him that I am very much in favour of that.
However, the hon. Member must consider what we are discussing in the Bill. We are talking about whether British Rail, which is in charge of the management, is using its powers sensitively to encourage more freight on the railways. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the evidence given to the Select Committee on Transport by those charged with these matters at British Rail. Hon. Members of all parties asked about the downward spiral and about the way in which BR is failing to attract traffic off the roads on to the railways by its insensitive management.
Much of the evidence to the Select Committee was given by freight operators who, if all other things had been equal, would have wished to have freight transported by rail rather than by road. Those people did not blame Government policy, which is not yet in force: they blamed insensitive railway management.
A company in my area of Lancashire which used to use rail extensively has said that its services could not be delivered on a number of occasions. Even if a train was originally on time, the company would find that the driver was nearly at the end of his shift and that he would have to hand over to another driver. The train was consequently delayed. The company needed to deliver goods to its customers within half an hour of the order being required. The train was sometimes 24 or 36 hours late. That is not a result of Government policy; it is the responsibility of British Rail management.

Mr. Boyce: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many air pollution problems are caused by the increasing level of road traffic. Between 1980 and 1990, emissions from road transport increased. Emissions of black smoke increased by 75 per cent., emissions of nitrogen oxide by 72 per cent., emissions of sulphur dioxide by 50 per cent. and emissions of carbon monoxide by 46 per cent. That is a direct result of the increase in road traffic.
The increase in emissions leads to ill health among children. We are now witnessing the highest ever rate of asthma—I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins).

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his most helpful intervention. Anyone who has children, as I have, must be very concerned about the pollution of the atmosphere by gases from heavy lorries. When one is talking about rail freight——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that asthma and pollution by heavy lorries have much to do with the Bill. I realise that the Bill is drawn fairly widely, but I do not think that it goes as far as that.

Mr. Hawkins: I was talking about the importance of getting freight back on to the railways.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main purpose of the Bill as deposited, according to the explanatory memorandum, was to construct
a new chord line at Shaftholme, South Yorkshire"?
Paragraph 3 of the statement says:
The Board has since decided to withdraw from the Bill Works Nos. 1 and 1A",
because the needs of British Rail's customers have changed.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause relating to Shaftholme was designed to ensure that freight was transported along that railway line? It would appear that BR is to withdraw that clause, presumably because it imagines that the freight that was once moved by rail will now be transported by road.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be the case, but it has nothing to do with asthma.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to the attention of the House.
In relation to the intervention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, the company to which I referred explained that, on several occasions, the locomotive, which was to transport its products by rail, had to return to Wigan from Clitheroe, as it was nearly out of fuel and the closest fuelling point was near Wigan. That caused enormous delays and is yet another example of unimaginative management and poor service to customers.
Regrettably, rail freight in Britain has been declining for many years. British industry has moved away from the older, heavy, smokestack industries, many of which were served by rail, to light manufacturing industry, which is served by road. I believe that there is no inevitability about that process. I believe that many companies would prefer to have their products transported by rail. When we examine a Bill like this, we must be aware of the need to encourage BR to provide facilities for that to happen.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The irony about the Bill is that the clauses which might have achieved my hon. Friend's objective of moving freight from road onto rail—and my hon. Friend has a well-known track record for calling for freight to move from road to rail—have been removed. The Bill might have achieved what my hon. Friend called for until it was presented today. The clauses that would specifically help the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) were those that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that BR intends to remove in Committee.

Mr. Hawkins: I am aware of the important point that my hon. Friend has raised; that is one reason why I wanted to refer to the freight issue tonight.
The ideal market for rail freight is one in which a small number of large industrial plants distribute products to a small number of large outlets. The problem is that BR's management have adopted a frame of mind that enables them to deal only with that kind of situation. Moving coal from pit to power station is currently the bedrock of BR's trainload freight operation. I believe that BR should consider the matter more flexibly. One hopes that some of that traffic will continue. High-volume products like coal, steel and aggregates have been the key to rail freight economics for many years.
I welcome the fact that, in recent years, BR has gradually improved its management's ability to allow operators like Foster Yeoman, which has bought its own locomotives at very high prices and which has invested heavily in rolling stock, to travel over BR metals. For more than 20 years, BR was not prepared to countenance such use over its rails. That drove a great deal of freight away from BR.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Transport and he knows that what he has just said is wrong. Foster Yeoman wanted more powerful engines, but BR could not afford to buy them and it provided two or three under-powered engines. That was unsatisfactory. British Rail had no resources because the Government had starved it of cash. Therefore, Foster Yeoman offered to buy its own rolling stock, and it now has a much more effective service. It has achieved that because BR could not afford to provide the engines

Mr. Hawkins: We are now considering an interpretation of history. My interpretation is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman talks to the people who run the company that we are talking about, he will discover that their interpretation is closer to mine than to his. However, I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter with the chairman of the company.
Market outlets for freight in Britain today are widely dispersed and require a distribution network which can move relatively small volumes quickly, flexibly and frequently. That trend has culminated in what are known as the "just-in-time" delivery systems. That market is now dominated by road haulage.
Rail is clearly best at trunking freight over long distances. We must decide whether the Bill assists in that regard. The need for trunking rail freight over long distances has led to the development on the continent and in the United States of America of what is known as combined transport. The idea is to aggregate traffic so that goods can be trunk-hauled. In such circumstances, rail has a competitive edge. Does the Bill do anything to encourage the movement of more freight to rail by means of a policy of combined transport?
Collection and delivery at each end can still be carried out by road. The use of containers or swap bodies helps to reduce handling costs. However, the transfer from road to rail and then back to road imposes costs and time penalties which are offset only on long hauls. Clearly, the distances involved in the United Kingdom are shorter than in the United States and Europe.
I am extremely concerned that a Bill of this nature should ensure opportunities for passengers and for freight,

and that there is more traffic on rail. I am not satisfied that the Bill achieves that at the moment. I am also concerned about the effect on people who live near affected lines.
The Bill affects historic lines like that in the south Wales coalfield of Mountain Ash, which was previously served by the Taff Vale railway before the grouping in 1923, and which was one of the most efficient and profitable private railways—the kind of railway to which, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East knows, I would like us to return. Clause 18(5) relates to the Great Western railway and proposes changing the Great Western Railway (General Powers) Act 1909. That important Act will be repealed in so far as it relates to the Wheal Bois crossing in Cornwall.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend has just glossed over the provisions of the Bill that relate to Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who sadly cannot be with us tonight, has given me authority to raise the issue on behalf of his constituents.
The provision in clause 18(5) does not simple amend an old Act. It proposes the stopping up of a level crossing for vehicular access and reducing it to the status of a footpath. No motor cars will have access across the railway line at Wheal Bois. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has told he that that is an extremely irksome matter for the people who live on either side of the level crossing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) does not believe that clause 18(5) is just a little bit of tidying up by BR of an old Act of Parliament. It will cause great inconvenience to the people of Redruth.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I apologise if I gave the impression that I was seeking to gloss over the matter. I intended to make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has just made. These matters are of enormous importance to the people who live near to the lines that are affected: that is precisely why I referred to Wheal Bois.
British Rail frequently deals with such matters in a couple of lines in an amorphous Bill like this. It fails to address the real concerns of the people who live beside the lines. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes for raising the matter. He reinforces my earlier point that BR management does not consider such issues sensitively enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) referred to the matters that affect his constituency and mine. I am concerned about the Bill, because I believe that BR will not make a sensible use of taxpayers' money. It should reintroduce the direct through service to my constituency on InterCity, which was so wrongly and unjustifiably taken away last autumn, and it should reintroduce the sleeper services that are so vital to business people in my constituency, to and from Preston.

Mr. Michael Brown: This is a very innocuous-looking Bill, and I dare say that it does not exercise too many hon. Members, but those who have had the opportunity of listening to Back-Bench Members tonight will agree that there is far more in it than meets the eye. I, of course, have a direct constituency interest in the Bill. It impinges directly upon railway services in my


constituency, because part III relates to works near Brigg. I shall raise that matter because it causes great controversy in my constituency.
In no sense do I make any complaint against my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who does a fine job in commending legislation. Even when it is bad legislation, my hon. Friend commends it to the House in a very agreeable way. However, I make a complaint against the promoter of the Bill, the British Railways Board. It should be pulled up by the House authorities, and certainly by the Ways and Means Office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing before the House a Bill, whose principal clauses relate to works at Shaftholme in South Yorkshire, according to the explanatory memorandum.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, even though it is in his charming way, says that the British Railways Board does not intend in Committee to press on with works Nos. 1 and 1A and that it does not intend to press clause 24, which relates to land at Macclesfield which will be relieved of the burdens placed upon it by the Inclosure Act 1773, a copy of which I have obtained for ease of reference. The implication is that no hon. Member need to concern himself with anything other than what British Rail seeks to include in the Bill when it eventually comes to the House on Third Reading.
We know the procedures of the House; the Bill will be considered in Committee. It is not for British Rail to say to the Private Bill Committee, "We do not want to press this clause, that clause, this schedule or that part of a clause." It will be making its case to members of the Private Bill Committee who are nominated by the Committee of Selection. What is in the Bill is what is of concern to us tonight, not what British Rail is saying through the sponsor of the Bill. Perhaps the Private Bill Committee will not accede to the board's request to have withdrawn from the Bill the provisions regarding Shaftholme and the new chord line. Perhaps the Committee will look at the Bill in its present form and decide whether to recommend that it should come back to the House for Third Reading.
I address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as the Chairman of Ways and Means as well, because you have certain responsibilities for private legislation. It is extraordinary that, if the Bill is passed and it goes to the Private Bill Committee, most of the amendments that are likely to be made will be made by the promoters of the Bill, who ask to have taken out of it clauses that they have written in.

Mr. Boyce: We are not even given an explanation of why the clauses should be taken out. Were they necessary in the first place? If they were, why, with such ease of purpose, are the promoters proposing to slide them away? They are either relevant and should be discussed in Committee or they are irrelevant. The promoters cannot have it both ways. The House needs a proper explanation before it sends to Committee such weak explanatory notes.

Mr. Brown: I shall attempt an explanation later, because the hon. Gentleman's question is very important. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be slightly more inclined to support those clauses of the Bill or support amendments to withdraw them if an explanation had been given to him. It is a very controversial political

explanation. It is a disgrace that British Rail should bring before the House private legislation that hinges upon political developments elsewhere. British Rail has a duty, in providing railway services, when using the valuable time of the House, which has great pressure on it in respect of private legislation, to make sure that the legislation that it wants to change will endure for a long time ahead. To introduce a private Bill based upon ephemeral, temporary market opportunities is quite wrong.
I have not forgotten the point of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce), but I have structured a number of points, and I want to start with my own constituency. The main point is that if the Bill is passed in its present form, the clauses relating to Shaftholme will still be in it before it is considered by the Private Bill Committee. Amendments, we assume, will be proposed. The amendments will be proposed, we assume, by the promoters. Members of the Private Bill Committee will listen to the promoters' arguments about why they want withdrawn clauses that they themselves deposited at the Private Bill Office only a few months ago. That is a disgraceful way to carry on.
We shall have to consider the Bill as it is tonight. I shall ensure that my remarks relate to parts of the Bill that still exist. Quite frankly, the Bill should have been withdrawn by the promoters at the point when they were taking out clauses willy-nilly, without a by your leave, until the explanatory note was placed before the House last week. The promoters should be made to withdraw the Bill and present it exactly as they want on the statute book. That should mean that they would be obliged to redraft the Bill and come before the House with a Bill exactly as they wanted it to be in the first place.
Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the rumpus that there would have been last year, when I was promoting the Associated British Ports legislation, if I had walked into the House with a Bill that was very contentious between the two main parties—the way in which Opposition Members responded to the Bill was entirely legitimate, and I certainly do not raise any complaint about their tactics—and indicated on Second Reading that certain clauses would not be pursued by the promoters when the Bill was considered by the Private Bill Committee? I would have been in an indefensible position. There would have been a riot on the Floor of the House.
I would not mind betting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that your predecessor as Chairman of Ways and Means, who was exercised about that Bill for a number of reasons, would have indicated to the promoters that they could not expect time on the Floor of the House until they presented a Bill with the clauses that they actually wanted enacted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman criticising British Rail or criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means? This procedure is not unique. What is before the House might be unusual, but it is certainly not unique. As someone who has considered private Bills in Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is the situation. I should he grateful if he would clarify whom he is criticising.

Mr. Brown: There is no way that any hon. Member, who has had the experience that I have in dealing with various Chairmen of Ways and Means since 1979, would do anything other than always accept and respect the decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Therefore,


there is a moral obligation on the promoters of the Bill to present to the Chairman of Ways and Means and then to the House a Bill in exactly the same form as they want it enacted.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you understood that there was any implied criticism of your office. That was certainly not the case. You will know that I have sponsored private Bills, served on private Bill Committees and opposed private Bills so I assure you that there was no implied criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means or his office.
I might have the good fortune to serve on the Committee that deals with this Bill. Let us suppose that the Committee decides not to give leave for the clauses that British Rail wants withdrawn from the Bill to be withdrawn. The Bill will then have to come back on Report with those clauses still in it. Even if the Committee gives leave for them to be withdrawn, I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) will automatically table amendments to retain those clauses. It is clear from the burden of his remarks that he is anxious, in so far as British Rail makes policy advances, for BR to continue developing policies that enable more freight to be put on rail and not on the roads.
At any rate, it is likely that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will support the retention of the clauses in the Bill. It is not given to the sponsors to come to the House tonight and to say, through my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, "We don't need to bother with the question of car parking at Macclesfield, the chord line in South Yorkshire and the works at Shaftholme because they will disappear from the Bill." It is given to the House only on Report to decide whether that will be the case.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South —because of his strong support for freight traffic—is successful in persuading the House that we should not delete the clauses and the House passes the Bill exactly as it stands today and Royal Assent is given, and then my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) decides that he wants to see the benefits that are contained in clause 24 relating to the possibility of additional car parking, what will the promoters do?
There are many problems ahead, not the least of which is the waste of time and money. That has already been referred to tonight. I believe that the promoters are wasting the time of the House. Let me tell hon. Members what the promoters have done with regard to works 1 and 1A. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said that the clauses relating to those works would be withdrawn in Committee or on Report.
In 1993, British Rail is hard against the coal face—or, rather, the cash face—when it comes to shortage of resources. I have with me the environmental statement, volume 1, which is full of clauses and paragraphs. I shall refer to the specific works later.
To give the House a flavour, the volume that I have with me is just the idiot's guide. The real idiot's guide contains a few short pages summarising what those works require. I also have the technical annex volume 2 A and E which is the environmental statement relating to works 1 and 1A. It relates to a railway bridge at Shaftholme which is provided for in the Bill.
If I had a slide projector in the Chamber, I could give the House some indication of the cost of the environmental statement. It contains photographs and maps. Goodness knows how many architects, surveyors

and British Rail administrative staff in the survey department were required to produce the document. All I can say is that there is no price on the document. On the basis that a document of this nature which is placed in the Vote Office costs about £15 simply to produce, I suspect that the cost of producing the environmental statement was horrendous.
We have the environmental statement annex, the general statement of objectives and the idiot's guide for people like me who British Rail think will not be able to understand the documents. All those documents were produced for today's debate. Last week, I went to the Private Bill Office. I went through the Bill and asked whether there were any environmental statements. I was told that there was a large series of documents and environmental statements. The Private Bill Office did not have copies of the documents, but said that it would telephone the promoters of the Bill and get the statements for me in time for this debate.
All those surveyors, architects, bureaucrats somewhere in York—I presume that it is the York regional office which is responsible—and the people at Euston house in London have worked on the environmental statement for the past year or so. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley then says. "We do not need to worry about the Bill tonight. It is a simple little Bill which will not be important. Half of the Bill will not apply. We will table amendments in Committee with which we hope that the House will agree." If British Rail thinks that I will agree on the nod to any withdrawal of clauses on Third Reading or on Report, it has another think coming.

Mr. Boyce: I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether the environmental impact studies refer to the whole Bill or the Bill as amended which the promoters have introduced. Will the costs to which you referred escalate as British Rail comes back with the proper environmental study for the Bill?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point. No environmental statement has been prepared for the clauses that will remain in the Bill if British Rail gets its way. The only environmental assessment relates to the clauses that the promoters intend to seek to withdraw. That is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that British Rail knew that I had objections to the specific part of the Bill which you are talking about? British Rail never made it known to me that the environmental statement pertaining to that part of the Bill existed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that that is disgraceful?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The words "you and me" are inappropriate for the Chamber.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a delight to see him sitting in the House. As he enjoys a long a distinguished career in the House, he will find that one must learn where to look for the hidey holes with regard to private business.
If a Bill is a private Bill, one assumes that an environmental statement will be automatically available alongside the Bill in the Vote Office. Last week, I went to the Vote Office. I asked for the Bill and a statement on it. That was provided. However, there were no estimates of the costs of the works referred to in the Bill. The House must know those costs which are available.
Other hon. Members have talked about the costs of those works. I shall deal with those costs later. One does not obtain the estimates from the Vote Office. One must walk up to the Private Bill Office which is above the Speaker's Office. Although the staff in the Private Bill Office are extremely helpful, one must specifically ask whether any environmental assessment is available. Even then, it is up to the promoters to decide whether to make the documents available and to what extent they will provide information. However, that is a well understood and accepted procedure. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) carries on learning the procedures of the House as quickly as he has done in the past few months, he will soon get to grips with that side of things.
I make no complaint about the procedure that I have just described. My complaint is that Northern Environmental Consultants Ltd., based in Consett, has done very nicely thank you out of British Rail. Goodness knows how much time it spent on the documents. No estimate has been provided in the estimate of the cost of the works of how much the consultants received from British Rail for producing the documents. We are given no idea of the time and energy that it misspent for British Rail.
I do not suppose for one moment that British Rail wrote to Northern Environmental Consultants—which I understand is a division of the northern division of Environmental Resources Ltd. based in Consett in county Durham—to say that it had decided not to use that company's environmental statement. I do not suppose that it told the company that it had decided to cancel the works and that it would not pay the bill. I daresay that a nice fat bill went up to the company. I do not suppose that the company did anything other than a proper job in producing the documents for British Rail.
It is appalling that British Rail should introduce a Bill from which it intended to withdraw clauses and then present an environmental impact assessment on the clauses that would be withdrawn. It is disgraceful that the costs of assessment will be simply buried and lost.
I shall deal with the provisions of the Bill that directly affect my constituency, before I refer to those that affect the constituency of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce). Indeed, those works also affect my constituency because we are talking about one railway line. I shall refer to the House for its consideration the specific works that relate to Brigg in schedules 1 and 2. I shall then pick up the implications of the position at Rotherham for my constituents who travel to Rotherham and the constituents of the hon. Member for Rotherham who travel to Brigg and Cleethorpes. I shall then discuss the provisions of clause 24, which affect Macclesfield.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley thought that he had satisfied me when he said that clause 24 was cancelled and that was the end of that. It is not the end of that. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield is happy with the present clause 24. It is designed to make life easier for rail travellers in Macclesfield by providing additional car parking space. The clause amends the Inclosure Act 1796. After 200 years, I daresay that there are probably good reasons for doing precisely that.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is in order, in the interests of spinning it out, in dealing with a clause that has been withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill before us. Such issues as may arise in Committee are not for this evening's proceedings.

Mr. Brown: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would have said last week when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presented the Railways Bill if he had been told that clause 2 of the Bill would not apply. I wonder what he would have said if my right hon. Friend had said, "We hope that the shadow spokesman for transport will not debate clause 2 because we have said that we will not pursue it on Third Reading." The hon. Gentleman would have replied——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on that issue. I thought that we were departing to Brigg now.

Mr. Brown: We are, indeed, departing to Brigg by a British Rail train, if they will allow us. I shall deal at an appropriate moment with clause 24, to which amendments have been proposed. I support clause 24 and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield supports it. I am certain that he would make a powerful speech inviting the House not to delete clause 24 on Report if it was proposed to do so and would vote in the Lobby accordingly. If my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley thinks that we can dispose of clause 24 like that, he has another thing coming. We cannot dispose of British Rail's refusal to amend the Inclosure Act 1796 just like that.
The main part of the Bill that affects my constituency is schedules 1 and 2, which are referred to in clause 22. Those parts of the Bill refer to two works. The first is the strengthening of the embankment of the line between Gainsborough and Grimsby. I wish to describe that railway line to the House so that it can understand the implications of the work. I shall do so in a moment.
The other work is the strengthening of the embankment at Mill lane of the railway line between Gainsborough and Grimsby. Everyone knows that line does not go from Gainsborough to Grimsby only. The terminus of that line is Cleethorpes. Why has the Bill used the word Grimsby rather than Cleethorpes? I shall tell the House why. One day, if British Rail gets its way, it will chop the line between Grimsby and Cleethorpes. So in all the legislation relating to my constituency British Rail never refers to the line from Manchester to Cleethorpes, Gainsborough to Cleethorpes or London to Cleethorpes. It talks about the line to Grimsby.

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman obviously intends to spin it out anyway, we might as well all join in. Will he confirm that under the Government's legislation—which, as far as we know, he supports—it will not be up to British Rail to chop any line? It will be up to Railtrack, which is a new creation. Poor old British Rail, or whichever franchise operator exists, will suffer under a financial regime that forces it to cut off services to places such as Cleethorpes, or other branches of the inter City services that have been lost in that area. Operators will have to do so not through any wish of theirs but as a result of the financial imperatives imposed upon them by the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman is tempted down that route, I must inform him that he cannot anticipate other legislation. He must consider the Bill before us now.

Mr. Brown: To keep within the rules of order, I shall describe to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) the way in which the railway service currently operates through, to and from Brigg. I am prepared temporarily to confine my arguments to the railway line between Grimsby and Gainsborough.
To set the proposals at Brigg in context, I must advise the House that a single spur railway line goes from Barnetby to Cleethorpes. One can travel by rail from Cleethorpes, through Barnetby and on to Manchester. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Rotherharn said, the train does not stop at Rotherham. One can also travel from Cleethorpes to Barnetby and on to the second spur to Newark, or to Sheffield via the Gainsborough and Grimsby line.
British Rail says that it needs to strengthen the embankment of the line at Mill lane in Brigg and in the parish of Scawby near Brigg, because it wants to be able to run trains at 75 mph instead of 30 mph. It says that that is to enable customers to reach their destination without delay and inconvenience. It says:
the state of this embankment is such that traffic is forced to reduce speed from 75 mph to under 30 mph with the result that services take longer to reach their destination thereby causing delay and inconvenience to the Board's customers.
Let us consider who the customers are on that line. About three years ago, British Rail wrote to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to tell us that it was going to take away the service and to use the provisions of the Transport Act 1985 to engage in what is called bus substitution. British Rail intended to operate a statutory bus service because it did not consider that there was a market for the rail line between Grimsby and Gainsborough. It seems extraordinary that three years later my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley should bring before the House a proposal to strengthen the embankment on a line that was going to be closed to passengers.
How was the passenger service restored? It was because my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and I kicked up such a fuss and told my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who was then the Minister with responsibility for railways—why we thought that it was wrong for the passenger service to be withdrawn. So it has been retained.
For ease of reference, I have obtained from the House of Commons Library timetable 29 from British Rail's all systems timetable, which gives times for trains from Gainsborough to Grimsby. The line covers the stations of Cleethorpes, Habrough, Barnetby, Brigg and Kirton in Lindsey in my constituency and goes on to Gainsborough central.
Three trains a day, in each direction, run on the line where the work is to be done. The first train from Brigg to Gainsborough Central—even if one is able to go at 75 mph instead of 30 mph—is at 11.32 am. I do not know what sort of person will want to travel at 75 mph instead of 30 mph to Gainsborough Central at that time of the morning. The journey takes until 11.56 am, which according to my reckoning is about 14 minutes. So the only type of person likely to use the train at that time——

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman should check his figures.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My secondary modern education has clearly come to the fore. I failed my 11-plus and I think that mathematics was one of the reasons. The journey from Brigg to Kirton takes 24 minutes. Let us suppose that I wanted to visit my goddaughter—the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle—and that I set off on the first train at 11.32 am. Unfortunately, due to the level of service that British Rail provides on the line, that is the only sort of journey that one can use it for.
There is no prospect of anyone using the service who works normal office or industrial hours, such as a workman or skilled worker who wants to get to the steelworks in Sheffield. They would want to use it during the rush hour. There is no way that a college student in Brigg could use the service to go to Sheffield and it is no use to children going to school. Some parents in Gainsborough send their children to Brigg preparatory school—it is a private school, so many Opposition Members might say, "A good thing, too"—but they have to drive them there.
The opportunities for passengers to save themselves a certain amount of time merely represents wasted time. Who will use the 11.32 service from Brigg to Gainsborough? What will happen if one speeds up the service, bearing in mind the fact that the trains in question will stop once between Brigg and Gainsborough?

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituents want to visit Doncaster to use its fine shopping facilities, particularly the market, which is open on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. They may want to visit that market to make some fine purchases.

Mr. Brown: That would be possible if my constituents took the train from Barnetby to Doncaster. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to travel to Doncaster on the train in question, from Brigg, on the Sheffield line, without changing at Retford. If one took the 11.32 am and changed at Retford, however, one would arrive at Doncaster at 12.9 pm. I suspect that most of my constituents would travel from Barnetby, on the Scunthorpe line, to Doncaster, which is on the Manchester line to which my hon. Friend for Blackpool, South referred earlier.
The people who will benefit from travelling at 75 mph and who will no longer be inconvenienced by delays as a result of weaknesses in the embankment at Scawby and Brigg, at Mill lane, will be those travelling at midday, for one reason or another, from Brigg, through Kirkton in Lindsey, to Gainsborough.
The next train from Brigg goes at 3.10 pm and the final train goes at 8.4 pm and reaches Gainsborough at 8.26 pm. For some reason, that same journey takes 22 minutes rather than 24 minutes. I am not sure how that is possible, but that is the way British Rail timetables work. It will never cease to amaze me how the final train, which makes the exact same journey, arrives two minutes earlier. Perhaps the fact that the driver is heading for home and the train is going to bed makes for a quicker journey. Three trains from Brigg to Gainsborough will benefit from the work outlined in the Bill.
The return journey is even more quixotic. Train No. 1 sets off from Gainsborough at 9.2 am and gets to Brigg at


9.23. That train arrives just too late for those who may work in Brigg, especially if they have to get to work for 9 am. It is too late for college students attending the sixth-form college in Brigg, which now takes students from across the county boundary in Lincolnshire. I cannot imagine that there is any great demand for that train.
Three trains travel between Brigg and Kirkton in Lindsey, at 30 mph. Under the fine proposals in the Bill, those trains will be able to travel at 75 mph. At the moment, at 30 mph, two trains from Brigg take 24 minutes and one takes 22, but the journey in the reverse direction takes just 21 minutes. Perhaps hon. Members can use their mathematical abilities to enlighten the House. Is that the reason for the variation in the timetables?

Mr. Norris: I am following this part of my hon. Friend's speech with immense interest. I am not very good at this sort of thing, but could the reason not be that on one leg of the journey the train is going uphill, while it is going downhill on the other?

Mr. Brown: I had not thought of that. However, two minutes are still unaccounted for—the two minutes that separate the last train home to Gainsborough from the slower train that travels from Brigg to Gainsborough at the beginning of the day. I am prepared to concede that Brigg is probably slightly higher than Gainsborough on the Ordnance Survey map; there is a small incline on the road journey.

Mr. Boyce: The hon. Gentleman has already said that the trains concerned are travelling at 30 mph. Surely they will be travelling at 30 mph whether they are going uphill or downhill. I may be wrong; perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) will point out some anomalies in my theory. I have always assumed, however, that 30 mph is 30 mph, whether a vehicle is going uphill, downhill, sideways, horizontally or vertically.

Mr. Brown: I am not trying to suggest that a vehicle travels faster when it is going downhill at 30 mph than when it is going uphill at that speed. Even with my limited mathematical ability, I recognise that that is not possible. Some years ago, when I was studying for O-levels, I encountered a question on logic and scientific method in the mathematics paper—O-level papers were a good deal more difficult than GCSE papers are now. The question asked whether a ton of steel was heavier than a ton of feathers. The reference by the hon. Member for Rotherham to the speed of railway trains travelling in opposite directions strikes me as rather akin to that O-level question.

Mr. Wilson: I note that only 49 minutes remain, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has quite a few timetables to get through in that time. Will he spare a moment to tell us why he is opposed to a proposal that will make an embankment safer?

Mr. Brown: I will do a deal with British Rail. Three years ago, British Rail made a case to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and me for taking away the passenger service, and I am prepared to acknowledge that that case may have been acceptable.
Let us assume that only three trains a day are travelling between Brigg and Gainsborough, with a passenger service

travelling from Cleethorpes through Grimbsy, branching at Barnetby just before Brigg, down through the line to Newark in Nottinghamshire, carrying on to King's Cross —in other words, the high-speed 125 direct service, which I can still catch to my constituency, but which in some 16 weeks' time, on 12 May, my constituents will be unable to catch because the service is being withdrawn. It is rather like the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South: we too are to lose the direct high-speed 125 service.

Mr. Wilson: rose——

Mr. Brown: I will give way in a moment, when I have developed the beginning of what the hon. Gentleman will have recognised is a most important argument for allowing the embankment at Brigg to continue in its present state. I am not suggesting for a moment that the line should be operated unless it is safe; but it is safe at 30 mph, whereas it is not safe at 75 mph unless the works are done.
I understand that the total cost of these works will be more than £2 million. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will be able to tell me the precise cost of the two embankment improvements, which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North says need carrying out for safety reasons. Of course, as long as three passenger services a day run over these embankments I do not want any risk to be taken with human life—but that is not what would happen if these works were not undertaken. The services would merely continue exactly as they are, with the current speed restrictions.

Mr. Wilson: We are gradually getting somewhere, albeit at 30 mph or less. We seem to have established that this jolly jape has nothing to do with the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has been adducing but more to do with a complaint—perhaps legitimate—about the withdrawal of an adjacent InterCity service. Given that fact, and given the hon. Gentleman's protestations of concern for his constituents, does he think that good enough reason to obstruct other measures in the Bill that are for the benefit of other hon. Members' constituents' safety?

Mr. Brown: The main safety provision—the strengthening works—relate to my constituency. I am not obstructing anything. The Order Paper tells me that at 10 pm the House can come to a conclusion on this matter. I am not aware that any other hon. Member wants to address the House. I would never dream of trying to prevent other hon. Members from speaking either for or against the Bill——

Mr. Waller: I am grateful for that assurance. My hon. Friend has raised a number of legitimate points which deserve an answer. He has said that he would not obstruct anyone who sought to intervene. I am sure that he would agree that it would help the House if answers could be given it. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again, to answer the points that my hon. Friend has raised. Bearing in mind his assurance, I should be grateful if he allowed me to do that in, say, 20 minutes' time.

Mr. Brown: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend can catch my eye and intervene with his answers to each question that I pose. I seem to recall that at the beginning of the debate, when I sought to intervene in my


hon. Friend's speech to ask him to consider the legitimate questions posed by the people of Brigg, he was unwilling to give way. He gave way reluctantly on a second occasion.
We have massess of time in the House; there is no question of obstruction. This is a three-hour debate. That is a perfectly reasonable length of time for anyone to say what he wants to. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North wants to go home to bed early. He can do so—the debate will conclude at 10 pm, as it must under the rules of the House. I assure him that this is no jolly jape. I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my constituents.
It is certainly no jolly jape attempting to make a rail journey on the line between Cleethorpes and Manchester, via the Scunthorpe-Doncaster line or via the Gainsborough-Kirton in Lindsey line—the subject of all this expenditure—or via the line to Newark down to King's Cross. I have been doing the journey for 17 years, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to try doing it for one week he will find that it is no jolly jape.
I assure the House that I have serious, legitimate concerns about the works to be engaged in by British Rail. The high-speed 125 service was introduced in a blaze of glory in 1982, when British Rail took away four direct trains from Cleethorpes to London and introduced in their stead a single high-speed rail service. It invited me to ride shotgun with the driver, and all sorts of fancy receptions were held. Yet the service is to go now, because BR says that my constituents are not paying enough in fares to make the service pay.
Tonight British Rail proposes massive expenditure on an embankment to carry three trains—at times when people cannot possibly use the service to get to work, college or school—to run in each direction between Brigg and Gainsborough. That is not a jolly jape; it is a serious constituency concern.
I hope that, if my constituents have the good fortune to hear these exchanges tonight on their local radio or in the television programmes that broadcast our proceedings, they will understand that the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is some kind of joke. I assure him that it is not. This is a crucial policy discussion on British Rail's expenditure and appropriation, or rather misappropriation—that is the joke, although I do not think that we should laugh at it. It is a joke to go to a firm of environmental consultants and to produce an environmental assessment of clauses that the House will be invited to withdraw on Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman speaks about his constituents knowing what is going on. I wish that his constituents could be supplied with a video of this debate so that they could see the hon. Gentleman in full and glorious flight. He spoke about going home to bed. I shall not be going home to bed anyway. Like most hon. Members, I do not like to see stunts, which is what the hon. Gentleman is performing. The hon. Gentleman seems to confirm that by saying that he is not arguing against the service but is using the Bill and the issue within it coincidentally to air his doubtless legitimate grievance about the withdrawal of InterCity services.
The hon. Gentleman is complaining in dramatic terms and at inordinate length about the withdrawal of the InterCity service to Cleethorpes. He had better prepare himself for a few more one or two-hour stunts, because the logic of his Government's legislation is that many more

InterCity services will be withdrawn. British Rail cannot be blamed for that. It is the fault of the Government who have imposed financial objectives on BR which require these closures, and privatisation will ensure many more withdrawals of direct InterCity services. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape from that logic and no amount of histrionics will get him off that hook.

Mr. Brown: That is simply not the case and it is not true. Under the present structure it is the nationalised British Rail which is withdrawing services and misappropriating expenditure in my constituency. Thank goodness I can look to the Government's Bill to franchise services and to come to the aid of my constituents. [Interruption.] British Rail has taken decisions about services in my constituency on the basis of its current standing as a nationalised corporation. British Rail gave notice in 1992, nearly a year ago, that it proposed to withdraw services from Cleethorpes to London and at that time there was no Government legislation on the table. The Government's current Bill will give my constituents opportunities and challenges which British Rail seems intent upon taking away. I look forward with enthusiasm to further debate on the legislation that was introduced to the House last week.

Mr. Wilson: I should like to clarify the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he think that a private franchisee will reintroduce an InterCity service from London to Cleethorpes? Would a private franchisee have been more likely to introduce such a service in the first place? Many InterCity services have been pruned. Night sleeper services in some areas and some direct services from Scotland have been lost, but I at least have the sense and consistency to realise that InterCity has to do that to meet financial objectives. Neither the hon. Gentleman, who gets into an enormous lather of outrage about the loss of the direct service from London to Cleethorpes, nor any of his hon. Friends should be under any misapprehension. Enfranchisement or privatisation—call it what we will—will lead to the loss of many more direct InterCity services. If all Conservative Members feel as nervous about it as the hon. Gentleman does, we shall have many similar entertainments in the months ahead from Tory Back Benchers.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is plain wrong, but he has asked me a specific question, which I shall answer. Provided that British Rail does not operate a scorched earth policy and does not allow a gap in the timetable so that ther is no going concern between the end of the service in May and the enactment of the Bill, there is hope for the service. Along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I have proposed to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and to British Rail that British Rail gives an undertaking that it will retain in the timetable the services that are used by the people of Brigg far more than the services affected by the Bill. The people of Brigg are far more likely to use the railway station at Barnetby, two and a half miles to the east of Brigg, than they are to use the railway station at Brigg, because then, to get to Gainsborough, they have to go over the embankments on a delightful journey in the middle of the day, involving two or three trains.
Therefore, if British Rail undertakes to continue the direct service from Cleethorpes through Barnetby and down to Newark and on to King's Cross, in both directions, until the day that the Railways Bill receives


Royal Assent, a franchise-run direct service between Cleethorpes and London could be a serious runner. However, I am prepared to concede that if British Rail operates a scorched earth policy and says, "We don't want to operate a direct service from Cleethorpes to London. Let's get it out of the railway timetable this May. Let's make sure that people have got used to making some other arrangements," there will be problems. People may become used to driving their cars to Doncaster or Newark to get the main line trains direct from those stations or have got into the habit of not using public transport for the journey to Cleethorpes from Brigg, Barnetby or Newark. Then it would be much more difficult for a franchise service to be successful.
Let me return to the Bill and the works in schedule 1. The main point is that money is being wasted by strengthening the embankment for a passenger service that operates six vehicles a day. The trains that operate are the new class 138—I think that that is right, but there is probably greater expertise among Opposition Members on that. I know that the 158 is the two-car service that operates between Cleethorpes and Manchester Piccadilly, and does not stop at Rotherham. If my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committe on Transport were here, he could have put us all in our place by giving us the correct numbers.

Mr. Boyce: I hope that it is in order to ask the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), through the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), when he comes to answer the financial questions put by the hon. Gentleman, to answer my question about the time that will be made up if the proposals go ahead and the trains through the link are allowed to travel at 75 mph rather than 30 mph. Earlier, the hon. Member for Keighley implied that he would answer the question and I am anxious that he does so.

Mr. Waller: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Brown: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has heard the hon. Gentleman's point and, should there be an appropriate point in my remarks that would allow him to deal with it, I should be willing to give way to my hon. Friend, who suddenly developed a desire to address the House on a second occasion even though he was a little nervous about giving way to me when he was speaking.

Mr. Peter Butler: I congratulate my hon. Friend on completing the first hour of his address to the House. During that period, he could have travelled approximately 30 miles on a British Rail train. Might that not have been a better way to spend his time?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. All too often, I spend an hour standing at Newark railway station, catching a cold or flu, becoming accustomed to what life will be like for my constituents at Brigg and for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, the Under-Secretary of State for Technology. In 16 weeks' time we

shall have to tolerate a change at Newark on our journey through to Grimsby and Cleethorpes. Some of my hon. Friends have found the past hour or so an endurance, but I shall have to spend even more time waiting for connecting trains at Newark and Doncaster. We know that London trains have to be only 10 minutes late before a local train is sent on.
My hon. Friend feels that it is possible to travel 30 miles in an hour with British Rail, but my experience is that it is sometimes necessary to stand on a station for a long time. If anyone wishes to travel from London to Cleethorpes, he or she will have to do just that at Newark, and for hours on end. I have much in mind the way in which connections are sometimes timetabled. Those of my hon. Friends who have found the past hour or so, which I have spent drawing attention to the problems of railway travellers, an endurance test will bear in mind, I hope, that that is what life will be like for my constituents later this year at both Newark and Doncaster when they wait for connecting trains on cold and draughty platforms for hours on end.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman's analogy is false. Most travellers waiting on a station for an hour would love to be entertained for that period by a clown.

Mr. Brown: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman, who has not been a Member of this place for as long as myself, does not appreciate that some of us take private Bills extremely seriously. If I were to entertain my constituents on a cold and draughty platform at Newark or Doncaster, they would much rather be on a train—however good the entertainment—making their journey home. They would much prefer not to be on the platform at Newark being entertained by me or anyone else. They would much prefer to sit in a train travelling direct from King's Cross to Cleethorpes. The hon. Gentleman might want to make cheap and stupid points, but he should bear in mind the inconvenience that some of my constituents will have to tolerate.
As it is constructed, the Bill appears to be a waste of British Rail's valuable resources. How does British Rail have the brass-necked cheek to tell my constituents that they cannot have a service of any sort between Cleethorpes and King's Cross without changing trains? Yet it is only too anxious to improve a three-train-in-each-direction service on the line between Brigg and Gainsborough and onward to Sheffield. That demonstrates a wrong sense of priorities. I am angry that British Rail has decided to adopt that approach to "improve" railway services in my constituency. The only railway service that needs improvement is the one that is being threatened with closure. It is a service which should be retained.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said earlier, on behalf of the Opposition, that British Rail had to withdraw services such as those to Cleethorpes and Blackpool because of the imposition of Government-imposed financial criteria. That is not why Cleethorpes is being disadvantaged, even though British Rail might say otherwise. I remember the assurances that were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and myself about five years ago about the long-term future of the service. I remember also writing to British Rail. I recall a private Bill that was considered in 1988. During the passage of that Bill I happened to write to British Rail—this was by coincidence—about the future of certain railway stations in my constituency.
I asked British Rail to commit itself to maintaining services between Cleethorpes and London. It stated in a letter that there was no threat to rail services, but my suspicious mind worked out that, one day, the high-speed 125 direct service would be taken away. In 1988, when there was no talk of privatisation, I worked out that one day BR would want to take away the men who sell tickets at railway stations to reduce manning. I received these letters from British Rail a week before the Bill was due to be given a Second Reading. It is strange that BR is prepared to give certain assurances to hon. Members, and I foolishly played no part in the private Bill that the House was then considering. This time, because of my experience, I do not believe the assurances that British Rail has given me.
BR retimed the Cleethorpes to London service. Previously I could catch a train from the House to my constituency, and Ministers frequently visited my constituency. A couple of years ago, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was a transport Minister with responsibilities for British Rail. One Friday evening, he caught the train from King's Cross to Barnetby. He left the House of Commons at about 4.45 pm, caught the 5.15 pm train and two and a quarter hours later he arrived at Barnetby. Within 10 minutes he was at his official engagement in my constituency. A year before British Rail announced that it would withdraw the direct service, it retimed the service so that it left London at 5.50 pm, arriving at Barnetby at 8.20 pm. It now arrives in Cleethorpes at 8.50 pm.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North says that British Rail is under an obligation from the Government to operate InterCity services in such a way that they are not profitable. British Rail has made the service unprofitable. People are less inclined to use the service in the evening because it now arrives about 40 minutes later than it did previously. People use the train that departs at 4.30 pm and tolerate changing at Newark because they get home earlier. British Rail has deliberately sabotaged the service by making it depart from London 40 minutes later, thereby making it very late when it gets to Barnetby, Grimsby and Cleethorpes. It has deliberately driven trade off the train.
If British Rail is saying that fewer people are using the train from Cleethorpes to Newark than two or three years ago, I am prepared to acknowledge that. After all, it is said that statistics never lie. I shall tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North why people are less inclined to use the direct service, and it it has nothing to do with the Railways Bill but more to do with BR's pricing policy.
British Rail used to advertise aggressively the super-saver service. In those days, the cost down to London was about £38. The super-saver ticket was available for second class passengers on the train from Barnetby to King's Cross until the year before last. British Rail then decided that no passenger could use the direct service from Barnetby to King's Cross unless he caught a traing after 9 am using the saver ticket. That meant that a large eight-coach train with first and second-class compartments and a breakfast car could not be used by some passengers, perhaps retired or less well-off people who could not afford to throw an extra £6 at British Rail. They had to wait until 9 am to catch the Regional Railways train to Newark, stand on a draughty platform and then get the main line train to London.

Mr. Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman starts on another circuit, perhaps I can pin him down. He has obviously persuaded himself—or purports to have persuaded himself—that there has been a dark conspiracy against Cleethorpes within the upper confines of British Rail. He is clearly a little parochial in these matters, but perhaps he can elevate his sights. Is it likely that British Rail has set out to deprive Cleethorpes of its InterCity service? if not, perhaps he should consider which lnterCity services should be cut so that Government targets can be met.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned 1988. Surely, given his encyclopaedic knowledge of these issues, he knows that the financial objectives to which InterCity and the rest of British Rail have had to work were laid down in December 1989 by Cecil Parkinson. Since then, InterCity—uniquely, certainly in Europe, and probably in the world—has been a profitable railway, albeit only marginally profitable. However, as there are some very profitable sectors within InterCity, which services does he suggest should be cut to meet the targets? Does he not understand that it is not a matter of Cleethorpes against the world but of Government policy?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That was a somewhat lengthy intervention.

Mr. Wilson: I was trying to get it in proportion to the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not follow that precept.

Mr. Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman say which sectors of InterCity should be cut and why he supports the financial objectives for InterCity which will clearly have the effect that he has rather unconvincingly created about tonight?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman complained and seemed to suggest that I was detaining the House unduly. I have many notes to read out and I wish to refer to Redruth and to Macclesfied. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as he is responsible for prolonging my short speech. I have many issues to raise with the promoters of the Bill, which are directly relevant to the clauses affecting Macclesfied and Redruth. I have wanted to refer to them for some time, but the hon. Gentleman keeps detaining me by raising interesting points to which I feel it is my duty to respond. The House will know that I am always generous in giving way to interventions from Opposition Members and that I do my utmost to answer them. I am certainly prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman.
I see no reason for British Rail to have to make cuts to live up to the objectives that the Government have placed on it. If British Rail had had the imaginative management of British Airways in the past 10 years, it would have no difficulty in being able to provide, with its InterCity services, trains at times the customer wants to travel while still meeting the Government's financial objectives.
British Rail chooses to run trains at times when people do not want to travel and chooses to delay the departure of the King's Cross to Cleethorpes train. That train was used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) until he became a Minister. He went on to become an even bigger Minister and then Prime Minister.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North should study the Order Paper for tomorrow. He will see that, during Prime Minister's Question Time, we are to discuss railway services between Cleethorpes and London, because I am to invite the Prime Minister to make an official visit to Cleethorpes by train. Tomorrow afternoon, the House and the nation, through television broadcasting, will be able to relate the proceedings on the Bill to Government policy. Between 3.15 and 3.30 pm tomorrow, the House will focus its attention on these railway services.
I hope that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North will not shout out that it is some kind of jolly jape when I ask my right hon. Friend to make a comment——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let tomorrow take care of itself.

Mr. Brown: Although that great day is only two and a quarter hours away, I leave that line of argument.
The main point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is that British Rail is unable to provide certain services to Cleethorpes. He asks me to accept that there is no conspiracy in British Rail against Cleethorpes. I should like to think that there is not, but I think of the way in which British Rail gave me assurances about the manning of railway stations in the Brigg area, in the Barnetby area and in the Habrough area of my constituency some years ago. BR gave me assurances about the long-term future of the high-speed 125 train from Cleethorpes to King's Cross some years ago.
I suddenly see that the Bill refers not to the Cleethorpes-Gainsborough line, but to the GrimsbyGainsborough line. Stations such as Barnetby were denounced six months ago. The Cleethorpes 125 direct service has been withdrawn. My suspicious mind wonders whether somebody up there in British Rail has got it in for Cleethorpes.

Mr. Boyce: I have no way of knowing whether Cleethorpes has been disadvantaged deliberately. I have my own theories about what is going on. The reason may be the vociferous way in which the hon. Gentleman has sought to protect Cleethorpes. It may be because I am a new Member of Parliament that British Rail has sought to take advantage of Rotherham. I have no way of knowing, but my suspicious mind tells me that that is the case. As I am a new Member and not very used to procedure, British Rail has sought to ride roughshod over the people of Rotherham. British Rail may have made the people of Cleethorpes suffer because of the vigorous intervention of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does himself a grave disservice. Anyone listening to him would not believe that he had been a Member of Parliament for only nine months. I honestly felt that I was listening to someone who had been a Member of Parliament for at least nine years. He eloquently convinced me of the disadvantageous way in which the Bill will affect the people of Rotherham.
I knew the hon. Gentleman's predecessor very well because we used to cross swords on steel issues when I represented the constituency of Brigg and Scunthorpe before the boundaries were altered in 1983. I knew Mr. Stan Crowther extremely well——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the rails.

Mr. Brown: Hon. Members keep sending me down branch lines. The hon. Member for Rotherham described himself as an inexperienced Member of Parliament. He is a very experienced Member of Parliament and he has quickly learnt to be suspicious of British Rail in the provision of railway services between east and west.
I shall now link the comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham with the challenge of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. I believe that British Rail simply wants to run InterCity trains in straight lines from London to Edinburgh, from London to Glasgow and perhaps from London to Bristol and Swansea. Its cross-country service provision has always been poor.
I am prepared to concede that there is, however, one bright spot—that is, when it works, when the trains turn up and when British Rail does not send old trains which break down. The Manchester to Cleethorpes service is pretty good and it has modern rolling stock. As the hon. Member for Rotherham said, the only thing missing is for the service to stop at a town the size of Rotherham. Under the terms of the Bill, that will not happen.
I believe that it is much more convenient for British Rail to run high-speed, electrified railway trains. British Rail does not want to run diesel-electrics. We must recognise that the service from Cleethorpes to Newark is not electrified. The point that is relevant to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is that the Government have given British Rail hundreds of millions of pounds to provide an electrified service from London to Edinburgh.
When the electrification programme was taking place in 1988, I wondered what would happen when the train from King's Cross reached Newark and the thing—I have forgotten what it is called—that extends from the engine to the electrified wire to draw the power——

Mr. Norris: The pantograph.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. I would expect him to know what it is called.
The pantograph is of use only on an electrified service. There is no electrification proposed between Newark and Cleethorpes and between Cleethorpes and Manchester. Therefore, we depend upon diesel electric trains.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If, as my hon. Friend says, there is such a need for the services to Cleethorpes, are not the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport just what my hon. Friend needs? If there is a need for those services, a franchiser will be prepared to bid for the services and my hon. Friend will then get the service that he wants.

Mr. Brown: That is the point that I made a few moments ago. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on.
However, we must obtain those franchises services when services continue to exist as going concerns. When the new timetables are introduced in May, the service is to be withdrawn from Cleethorpes. The Railways Bill, which received its Second Reading last week, probably will not


reach the statute book until July or perhaps not until October or November. There will be an interregnum, during which there will be no direct service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury would surely agree that if a business is sold as a going concern, it will benefit from the new arrangements to improve that going concern. However, if a business, operation or railway service is shut down and one expects the private sector to crank it up once more, albeit under the new facilities that I welcome in the Railways Bill, that service is more likely to be a success if a new franchised service takes over 24 hours after British Rail relinquishes control and if BR does not pursue its scorched earth policy.
I object to the fact that if BR does not want to provide the service and decides to close it in May, and the new legislation does not reach the statute book until the end of the year, by that time BR will have driven people off the railways to Cleethorpes altogether and into their cars to drive to Newark and Doncaster. That is why it is so wrong for British Rail to claim that it wants to save money on that service when it is prepared to waste money.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was not present earlier. I shall not go over old ground, but I shall give my hon. Friend an idea of how British Rail has been wasting money. I have with me the environmental assessment of the clauses relating to Shaftholme and the chord line in works Nos. 1 and 1A, which was produced by a firm of consultants for British Rail. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley told the House that those clauses will not be proceeded with. British Rail is prepared to waste money to pay private sector consultants to produce a report on clauses that will not be enacted, yet it is not prepared to provide for my constituents a service from Cleethorpes to London. That is the waste of money in the Bill.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of my hon. Friend's concise, short speech, but has he tried to suggest to British Rail that it might operate the train to Cleethorpes at peak hours only?

Mr. Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will do me the honour of speaking in my constituency, and I hope also that he will use the railways service between now and May to do so. There is but one train a day from Cleethorpes to London in the morning and one train from London to Cleethorpes in the evening. When I became a Member of Parliament 14 years ago there were four trains in each direction. We now have only one train at peak times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] As my hon. Friends say, that is disgraceful. The situation has deteriorated in that time, and that is why I am so suspicious of British Rail's future intentions.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has certainly brightened up the evening. I am sure that he will go down as the man who isolated Cleethorpes within the space of three general elections. However, for the hon. Gentleman it is a serious point. He will have investigated the differential cost of InterCity services operating on electrified lines and non-electrified lines. In the light of that information, he will be able to inform not only his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) but many other hon. Members about the likelihood of InterCity services continuing after being franchised on non-electrified lines.
Is not the hon. Gentleman's message that, under any auspices, if InterCity is to be a profitable railway, or if bits thereof are to be profitable, there will be no InterCity services operating on non-electrified lines? That carries a very serious message not only for some of my hon. Friends north of Edinburgh, for instance, but for many Conservative Members, as they are about to find out during the passage of the Railways Bill.

Mr. Brown: I certainly had my suspicions back in 1988 that British Rail had no wish to have high-speed 125 trains —that is, the diesel electric powered trains that do not require overhead cables—going anywhere near King's Cross. I have heard from railway experts in my constituency, such as the Railway Development Society based in Cleethorpes, that British Rail wants to do everything that it can to run only electrified trains into King's Cross. That certainly carries the implications that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North mentioned. Any high-speed 125 train that goes to King's Cross is a vulnerable service. The service from Hull to King's Cross is certainly vulnerable. Concern has been expressed about the service in Goole, which is operated from Hull to King's Cross.
I am only just coming to my concluding remarks with regard to the provisions of the Bill concerning Brigg. I now turn to the provisions——

Mr. Gary Waller: rose in his place and claimed to move That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 51.

Division No. 143]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Arbuthnot, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Ashby, David
Legg, Barry


Bates, Michael
Lidington, David


Bellingham, Henry
Lightbown, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Maclean, David


Bowden, Andrew
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Maitland, Lady Olga


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Merchant, Piers


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moss, Malcolm


Carttiss, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Chapman, Sydney
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Norris, Steve


Congdon, David
Patnick, Irvine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Richards, Rod


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Riddick, Graham


Durant, Sir Anthony
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Fabricant, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Forth, Eric
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Freeman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Heald, Oliver
Steen, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stephen, Michael


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thomason, Roy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thurnham, Peter






Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Michael Trend and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Peter Luff.


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)





NOES


Barnes, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
McMaster, Gordon


Chisholm, Malcolm
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Mahon, Alice


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Meale, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Michael, Alun


Day, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mullin, Chris


Dover, Den
O'Hara, Edward


Eastham, Ken
Parry, Robert


Elletson, Harold
Pickthall, Colin


Etherington, Bill
Pike, Peter L.


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hall, Mike
Spellar, John


Hawkins, Nick
Stevenson, George


Heppell, John
Sweeney, Walter


Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Illsley, Eric
Watson, Mike


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Whittingdale, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine



Kilfoyle, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Jimmy Boyce and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Michael Brown.


Llwyd, Elfyn

Whereupon MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for closure or for proposal of Question).

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 11 February

Industrial Training Levy

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
The proposals—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask for considerably more silence?

Mr. McLoughlin: The proposals before the House seek the authority for the construction and engineering construction industry training boards to impose a levy on the employers in their industries, to finance the running costs of the boards and to fund their range of training initiatives, including grants schemes. Provision for that is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982 and the orders before the House would give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.
Both proposals include provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires that in such cases the propsals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In each case, the proposals are the same as those approved by the House last year. They are based on employers, payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. Both have special provision for small firms.
For the CITB, the rates are 0·25 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of payments made by employers to labour-only sub-contractors. Employers with a liability of £45,000 or less will be exempt. The ECITB treats its head offices and construction sites as separate establishments and applies different levy rates, which reflect the costs of training particular workers. For head offices, the rates are 0·4 per cent. of payroll and 0·5 per cent. of payments to labour-only sub-contractors. Firms employing 40 or fewer employees are exempt. The rates for sites are 1·5 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of labour-only payments with exemption for employers with a liability of £75,000 or less. In each case the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry, as required by the Industrial Training Act, and have the full support of the respective boards.
The House will know that the CITB and the ECITB are the only two remaining statutory industry training boards. Most other sectors of industry are covered by independent arrangements. The Government believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, independent employerled arrangements are the most effective. The House will be aware that the CITB is currently under review. This has, I know, given rise to much speculation and concern.
I hope that the House will be reassured when I say that, as in 1990, we have consulted widely with the industry about the effectiveness of the board and its current funding arrangements. I am not yet able to make a statement to the House about the board's future, but I can say that the results of that consultation will be extremely important in informing our decision. Although there is still some work to be done, I hope to make an announcement shortly. In


the meantime though, the operations of both the boards continue as normal. I believe that it is right for 1993 that the House should agree to approve the draft orders before it, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Given the crisis into which the Government and their policies have plunged the construction industry and training within it, it is staggering that the Minister should make such a brief speech.
I remind the Minister of the debate that he opened a little more than a year ago on a similar order for the construction industry training board, when the Prime Minister's meeting with a delegation from the industry in October 1991 was described. The delegation stressed the depressed state of the construction industry to the Prime Minister, who disagreed with the delegation's gloomy forecast of when recovery in construction would begin and said that he expected the industry to emerge from recession in the middle of 1992. Many people are still awaiting that recovery, including the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who has a considerable interest because redundancies at the CITB have affected his constituents. Those redundancies have been made precisely because of the recession in the construction industry and the incompetence of the Government.
I should put the record straight: it was not the present Minister who opened the debate on the CITB in December 1991, but the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who said then that much progress had been made by the CITB. In a sense, he paid tribute to the way in which the board had restructured its operations and he said that new measures on training had been introduced to counter the effects of the recession. Nothing could have been further from the truth, because in the past 12 months training in construction has fallen behind the provisions made in previous years—in common with training in many other areas of economic activity.
The Minister has commented on the Government's view of voluntarism, but it is important to note that Sir Brian Wolfson, chairman of the national training task force, made it clear recently, to the great embarrassment of the Secretary of State and her Ministers, that he now supports levies for all industry, not simply for the construction industry, which has its own particular problems. He believes that those levies are necessary because voluntarism has been such an abysmal failure where it has been adopted.
He also made an outspoken attack on the Goverment's underfunding of the training and enterprise council system. That was hardly surprising when we note that between 1989 and 1990, the beginning of the present recession, until 1995–96—which is as far as Government projections go—there will have been a cut of 32 per cent. in real terms in Government funding for training. That reduction will be made before the present round of public expenditure cuts are imposed. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House as to whether more cuts will be made as a result, or can he guarantee that the training budget will be maintained at its present level?
My guess is that the Minister will not be able to tell us one way or another, because the last people to be consulted on the training budget will be Ministers at the Department of Employment, who have failed abysmally to protect that

budget. [Interruption.] The Whip may groan, and I should be more than happy for him to break our conventions and debate this matter with me: he is part of the incompetence surrounding those on the Treasury Bench and it is right for him to take some interest in what is going on.
The construction and engineering industries are virtually unanimous in their opposition to voluntarism. In common with Sir Brian, they do not believe that it represents a useful way forward. Many people now believe that it is time for the reviews of the CITB to be put to bed. It is disgraceful that the Minister should come to the House tonight and be unable to tell us where that review stands.
The present remit of the CITB will expire in April this year and if I were the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, I should be extremely concerned about the future of my constituents who work for it. I know from that hon. Gentleman's previous endeavours on behalf of his constituents that he is not afraid to criticise the Government for their incompetence regarding the board's operation and their general lack of enthusiasm for what it tries to do.
The Minister should also note that an announcement from his Department stated that a government decision on the future of the CITB would be made "early next year". That was the comment of Mr. Jim Wiltshire, head of the Department of Employment's training division. He went on to say that, in that context, "early next year" meant January, rather than later in the year. I do not consider a date in February consistent with that. When exactly will the Minister allow the training board to know where its future lies?
It is not the board's apologists who are frustrated: the Building Employers Confederation, for instance, has said:
frequent reviews have a destabilising effect on training and staff morale.
The federation is right. The message is coming through loud and clear from the whole construction training side: morale is indeed at a low ebb, because people are not certain of their future. We need an industrial training board that is committed to getting the best out of the industry. Given the absence of a partner in government to help to obtain that best, the current frustration is understandable.
I should place on record the fact that, although I have prayed in aid of the Building Employers Confederation, it has been critical of some aspects of the CITB. It is certain, however, that a statutory training board and a levy are needed. The confederation's view is now shared by many other organisations. The plant hire firms, whose support for the CITB has seemed a little suspect in the past, recently stated that, if the present levy ended, there would be
a rapid collapse in training, with less responsible companies poaching trained operatives off those who have invested in training.
Of course, the whole rationale for a levy system—not just in construction, but across the board—is the fact that poaching is what good trainers fear that bad trainers do. No Minister has been able to provide an answer for that.
It is time that the Government came clean. Do they intend to abolish the levy system and the board in what might be called an ideological spasm? The Department has failed to come up with its own ideological offering on the alter of failing Thatcherism. A reluctant Secretary of State for Transport has introduced a Bill for the ludicrous


privatisation of British Rail, for a number of silly reasons. Perhaps the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment wants to go down in a blaze of glory as the man who finally got rid of the training boards.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Perhaps the building will collapse on top of him.

Mr. Lloyd: Indeed, we do not know what will happen to him as he leaves the building.
Both training and construction itself are now in crisis. Between 1988 and last year, the number of housing starts fell by 36 per cent., and output generally fell by 12 per cent. It should come as no surprise to learn that, over the same period. there was a massive reduction in the number of people employed in the construction industry. Even in the one year between June 1991 and June 1992, there was a 12 per cent. cut in the number of employees in the industry, and a 10 per cent. cut in the number of self-employed. That amounts to a staggering total of 174,000 job losses in that industry in a single year.
The Minister and his colleagues should be ashamed of themselves for allowing that to happen at a time when millions are out of work. Many of the people between 16 and 24 who are currently unemployed—nearly a million —are desperate to obtain employment training in the construction industry; there is a desperate shortage of skilled operatives in the industry, and a desperate shortage of decent quality housing stock and other buildings. For economic, social and human reasons—even to get the Government off the political hook on which they have hung themselves—we ought to train people in construction. Instead, the Government's inaction has led to the rundown of the industry and the rundown of training. That is the charge to which the Minister must respond at some point.
In 1989, the last peak for the construction industry, there were some 81,000 apprentices. By 1992, the number had fallen to 59,000. That is a dramatic reduction. We know that in 1990–91 the CITB was supporting 14,000 construction trainees. By 1991–2, that had dropped to 10,500. Last year, the number was down to 8,500. So even the Government's own schemes have fallen off dramatically.
In the Government's much vaunted youth training scheme, the claims for which are that the youth guarantee works—the Minister and I know that it does not—were it not for the 2,000 places that the CITB is propping up, the Government would look even more embarrassed. Twelve thousand organisations disappeared from the CITB register in one year alone—12,000 building organisations went to the wall because of the crass incompetence and stupidity of the Chancellor and the Conservative Members who support him.
The construction industry has collapsed, and so has training. The Government have been criticised by many of the most senior and eloquent people in the industry. In recent months they have been severely criticised by the big operators which have contracted with the training and enterprise councils to organise adult training: Wimpey, John Mowlem, Henry Boot and Jarvis specialise in the retraining of adults but fear that the cash will not be

forthcoming from TECs to continue with this type of training. The chief executive of the east London TEC, Ian MacKinnon, has said:
Whether we can continue to justify current levels of construction training we shall just have to wait and see. We must respond to market conditions.
He is not talking about whether we need skilled operatives; he is talking about whether there will be enough money in the TEC budgets to allow them to go in for this relatively expensive form of training, not the cheaper options to which TECs are being driven. The Minister must respond to the charge that the underfunding of TECs will mean a lack of skilled people working in construction.

Mr. Den Dover: The hon. Gentleman has asked the Minister a great many questions, but he has not said whether his party supports the continuation of the construction industry training board. Will he be a bit more positive and praise its efforts so far, and explain why his party supports the board's continuation, if indeed it does?
Does he not realise that it is impossible for the Government to create these jobs? If there is a market, with low interest rates and with growth in the economy, building will take off. We expected it to do so last year and this year, and one day it will happen.

Mr. Lloyd: Conservative Members may have been expecting that, but we have not. We have said that the wrong Chancellor is guaranteed to produce the wrong results. The green shoots of recovery never appeared. That was true at the time of the last election, when the hon. Gentleman went around his constituency claiming that the Conservative Government would not have to cut public spending, that the social programmes would be kept intact and that there would be no tax increases under a Conservative Government. In the light of this afternoon's statement and of other events, that argument is no longer sustainable. The Government have failed the economy and the construction industry. They have sat on their hands and allowed the economy to go down the pan, and they are guilty of allowing the construction industry to go down the pan, too.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to say some kind words about the CITB. I do not come here sponsored by anyone. I come here to advocate the case for better training. I shall have something to say about the CITB in a while. We must not allow the debate to turn on the narrow question of whether the Government can claim that they are doing something worth while. Their record in training and construction is pathetic. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this; he has taken part in these debates for a good number of years and I remember debating these matters with him many times. I hope that he will tell the Government precisely what he thinks about their failures and not allow them the easy ride so often allowed by Conservative Members on such important issues.
As I have said, there has been a gross failure to train, and 174,000 people disappeared from the industry in one year. From the height of employment in construction to its present depth, the most recent Government figures show that nearly 400,000 people have disappeared from the industry. In truth, the figure is much higher than that, because the Government under-records those who disappear and there is not an exact picture. Probably 500,000 people have been lost to the industry. That is a great waste of the skills and talents of people who have been trained in the past using public money and by means


of the levy system. That those skills have been allowed to dissipate is a cause for great shame and shows the monumental stupidity of the Government and others responsible.
The general view in construction is that many of those who leave the industry never return. It is certain that massive skill shortages will begin to appear early in any upturn in the industry. Last year, the industry was pressed harder than for many years. The IFF survey, ironically sponsored by the Department of the Employment. was called "Skill needs in Britain—1992". IFF describes its activities as "thoughtful research in British markets". Even in 1992, some 9 per cent. of firms had hard-to-fill vacancies in the previous 12 months. Even in the middle of a Government-inspired recession, some firms have skill shortages that they cannot easily put right. That shows that insufficiency of present skills training.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's view about the desperate state of the construction and allied industries. Does he agree that the orders should be passed so that the levy may continue for the lifetime of the existing board? There is great diversity of companies within the construction industry. Does he further agree that we need to get the right formula so that the structure of training meets the needs of all sections of the industry? I worked for many years in construction plant hire, and I declare an interest in that for many years I have been the parliamentary adviser to the Construction Plant-hire Association. Training must reflect the interests of all parts of the industry.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

Mr. Lloyd: It is an interesting speech, with which I have considerable sympathy. In the past plant hire firms have criticised the CITB, but they are strongly on record as saying that they wish the CITB to continue and the review to conclude that there is a need for a levy. They said:
If the present levy were to end there would be a rapid collapse in training with less responsible companies poaching trained operatives off those who have invested in training.
I agree with the CPA's comments to Government and others. It is about time the review ended, because it has dragged on for far too long. There may be questions about the organisations of training, but it is about time the Government concluded their deliberations with the private sector.
The Building Employers Federation has said that the CITB is too remote from the industry and needs to talk more to employers. We would say that it needs to talk more to employees as well. There must be more than lip service because major issues such as the industry's appalling health and safety record need to be addressed. That can be done only by involving both sides of the industry in the kind of partnership that we advocate.
The Minister has told us that, even after all those months and his departmental officials telling us that there would be an announcement by the end of January, we must still wait to have our uncertainty ended. That is ridiculous when training in construction is collapsing, and the future of the nation is being put at risk by the indolence and incompetence of Ministers.
I am never sure that I do the hon. Member for Macclesfied (Mr. Winterton) any favours when I say that

I find in these debates that he and I have far more in common than he has with those on his Front Bench. I will pay him a little tribute by saying that that is because he seems to care, and to think, about the issues. Would that we could see some sign of that among those on the Government Front Bench.
Even last year, a significant number of firms said that they had hard-to-fill vacancies. Two years before that, when we were already well into the recession, 44 per cent. of firms in the construction industry reported that they had hard-to-fill vacancies over the previous 12 months. We know that we do not need to move into a time of boom for skill shortages to emerge, but simply into a time when we are in a recession that is not quite as severe as this. That is what happened two years ago, and the frightening thing is that, since that time, the industry has probably lost 250,000 workers, or perhaps even more.
If the Minister can explain to me, or to any hon. Member, in a believable way, why we can take on trust his assurance that there will not be skill shortages when the recession finally bottoms out, he must know things way beyond what any intelligent commentator on the industry knows.
We need something simple—a CITB that is structured in a way that suits the needs of industry, and that is a matter for negotiation. Obviously, the Government are a central play, as are the industry and the board. We cannot allow matters to drift. For example, the CITB should not be raiding its assets, as it has been for several years, because the Government have chosen to make it operate in that way. We know that, in every year since 1988–89, the CITB has operated in deficit. It spent more than £4 million above its revenue in 1988–89, £1·5 million above in 1989–90, £7·7 million above in 1990–91, £4·1 million above in 1991–92 and a staggering £20·7 million above in the present year of 1992–93.
The Minister has to think how long the board can carry on doing that. Because of the decline in the industry, the levy has fallen in the past three years from £62.8 million to £54.2 million. If the board is to continue to train at the levels of the past year, it can do so only if it continues to raid the assets that it has built up over the years, and there is a limit to how long that can go on for.
At the beginning of the debate, I said that the previous Minister had talked about the success of counter-recessionary policies. The simple reality is that while the CITB has been trying to play its own role, when it operates on its own, it does so against such tremendous odds that it cannot possibly generate the necessary levels of skill in the construction industry. The Government must accept that it is time that they did something.
Another dilemma faces the construction industry, and I hope that Tory Members will take serious note of it, because it is not trivial. When the Department of Education changed the basis of the funding of colleges of further education, it threw a little bombshell into the structure of training in the construction industry. At the moment, the Building Employers Confederation is lobbying the Government on that issue, because it is fearful that the funding mechanisms will mean that college principals and managers will decide to withdraw from construction training because it is expensive compared with courses in, for example, the liberal arts and languages —and I do not mean to denigrate those disciplines.
Roger Elford of the confederation has said:


There has got to be a funding mechanism which gives the colleges an incentive to mount expensive course like construction.
That was made clear to me two weeks ago when I visited a college of further education. The head of the department who was responsible for construction said that he was having to consider carefully whether he could justify the continuation of construction courses because of the high fixed capital costs and high running costs which stemmed from the need for materials. He stressed that he could run cheaper courses that were much more revenue generating.
I know that the Departments of Education and of Employment do not talk to each other, but it is about time that the Minister took a short journey and told his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Education that things are going seriously wrong. Those are not my words alone. They are echoed, for example, by the Building Employers Confederation, which is seriously concerned at the collapse of construction education in colleges of further education. It is a recorded fact that the CITB depends heavily, as does the ECITB, on the courses provided in FE colleges. The collapse of the course is not trivial. We know that the numbers of students signing on for such courses are down on previous years. The Minsiter must say what he intends to do about that.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) that I have painted a grim picture, but it happens, unfortunately, to display the truth. It spells out clearly that the Government planned on the basis that the recession would be far shorter than it has proved to be. In other words, they were disastrously wrong. When it became clear that the recession would continue for longer than had been thought, they refused to listen. They refused to take the necessary policy decisions. Even now, the Government are refusing properly to fund training generally. We know that the cuts in the overall training budget have increased by about a third over a few years.
We need a Government who are committed to training. We need also a Government who will commit themselves to the CITB to ensure that there is a properly structured training board for the construction industry, and the same applies to the engineering construction industry. Unfortunately, the Government will not adopt that approach while they pretend that there is no problem.
When there is an upturn in the construction industry, we shall face a horrendous problem. We shall have a balance of payments difficulty greater than that which we already have on the construction account, and that is becoming a serious matter. If we are to have a construction industry of the size that we need, we shall have to import skilled labour from outside Britain. That would be ridiculous and untenable. The hon. Member for Chorley shakes his head. He must come up with something better than that. We know, unfortunately, that training has declined. Where will the trainees come from? From where will skilled construction workers emerge? If the present circumstances are allowed to continue, we shall not see those people.
Exemption has been criticised by many groups over the years. The Federation of Master Builders has stressed that every company benefits from the CITB and that every company should contribute to it. It has made it clear that the good trainers face poaching by the bad trainers. There

is the anomaly created by the fact that those below the £45,000 payroll cut-off point are in competition with those just above it, which leads to unfairness.
We know that voluntarism does not work. There is evidence that in every industry throughout the country training has been cut to a greater or lesser extent in the middle of the recession. There has been a levy system in the construction industry, but the cuts have been massive.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has told us where he thinks the Government are going wrong, but he has not said whether he would increase the levy, or what the general levy for training would be if the Labour party had its way.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister may not be aware—I sometimes doubt whether he does know this—that it is up to him and his colleagues to come up with practical and workable plans for training. The Government have deliberately chosen to underfund training and have refused to play their part in partnership with others in the industry. If Labour were in government, we would listen carefully to those in the construction industry who are saying that the levy is too low, that it does not allow those who want to train to do so adequately and that more needs to be done.
The income of the CITB has dropped dramatically. The Minister must come up with better answers than simply asking me what we would do. But I make this offer to the Minister: if he is prepared to accept cogent advice from the Opposition, we are prepared to help the Government by telling them how to run training. They have made such a disastrous mess of construction that future Labour Governments will inherit the skill shortages caused by their crass policies. There can be no graver indictment of the Government than that.
Of course we are in favour of the order. We shall not divide the House: half a loaf is always better than none. But I make it clear that this half a loaf is sabotaging the long-term future of the country.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I immediately declare my interest as a consultant to Ewebank Preece, which is the 13th largest firm of consulting engineers in the country. It is based in Brighton and employs a significant number of my constituents.
In 1989, only the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board and the Construction Industry Training Board kept their levy-raising powers, because, it was argued, of the mobile nature of their work forces. If that was intended to apply to mobile workers, it surely was not intended to apply to consultants, who are not in the same category. That is backed up by a letter than was sent by the Association of Consulting Engineers to a member of another place. It said:
The training funded and organised by the ECITB is mainly at craft and technician level and very little of it is relevant to the majority of employees of consulting engineering firms.
In 1989–980, Ewebank Preece's levy was waived. In 1990–91, it was faced with a levy of £70,000. It is now contesting the levy. In 1991–92, under the new formula, the figure is £8,000.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Eight thousand pounds?

Mr. Bowden: Eight thousand pounds.
It seems that Ewebank Preece is being forced to pay the levy when other comparable consultants are not. This raises important points. It means that Ewebank Preece is in an unfair competitive position not only in relation to the levy but in relation to other costs. The preparation of the levy, the staff and the management time involved runs into considerable sums.
The Minister will recall that I tabled some parliamentary questions to find out who pays the levy. The information was not forthcoming. Why? Is it a state secret so that the House, the industry and the public cannot know who pays and does not pay it? On what conceivable grounds can my hon. Friend justify keeping that information secret? I suggest that a list of all the payers should be published because Ewbank Preece is convinced that many comparable consultancies are paying no levy. The company cannot be absolutely certain, but it would be fair and right if all the names were in the public domain.
What about the future? I know that the Minister cannot change the orders that we are discussing, but will he re-examine the White Paper published in December 1988, entitled "Employment for the 1990s"? On page 36 it states:
The Government will, therefore, now enter into consultation with each of the statutory Industry Training Boards and organisations representing employers in their sectors with a view to drawing up an agreed programme and timetable for becoming independent, non-statutory bodies.
That was published in 1988, but not much has happened since then with regard to the two training boards that we are now discussing.
I suggest that next year my hon. Friend should consider alternative arrangements, such as using the training and enterprise councils to a greater extent. I believe that the TECs have been allocated funds well in excess of £2 billion for the coming financial year, so, perhaps a little extra for them to carry out that role would be the way to proceed. I hope that I have proved to my hon. Friend that the present situation is not as appropriate and fair as it should be. If so, we could ensure that the money for industrial training was used more effectively.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: The debate takes place against a background that, I think all hon. Members will agree, is disastrous for the construction industry. Estimates of the number of people who have lost their jobs in the recession range from the most cautious and conservative figure of about 400,000 to 500,000 or more. One cannot open the pages of the construction industry press without seeing each week a further record of firms going bust.
This week's edition of Building magazine—I declare an interest as an occasional correspondent—records that Clayton Bowmore, a building firm with a turnover of £15 million a year and 240 employees, went into liquidation last week. The article states that the banks were responsible for its collapse, as was the case for A. F. Budge and Lilley, two other construction firms which also went into receivership recently. That is a regular occurrence; every week we read similar depressing stories.
The implications have been devastating for the Construction Industry Training Board. The previous page of Building magazine contains an article recording the CITB's 1991–92 annual report, which shows that more than 1,200 companies which had paid levies to the CITB

in the previous year folded in 1991–92 compared with an average of 300 in the previous four years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, its levy income has been cut dramatically as a result of so many firms going bust in the recession. That is the grim context in which we are considering the order.
The construction industry is vital for the future of this country's economy. Many of us believe that it is one of the keys to bringing the country out of recession. Many of us argue that the Government have been far too slow to take effective action to stimulate recovery in construction. One obvious example is the accumulated capital receipts of more than £5 billion available to local authorities which could be used urgently to stimulate building work. Another is the rapid construction of the Jubilee line, which I know that some Conservative Members have advocated as strongly as I have. That line is vital both for transport communications in east London and for our construction industry. Many such projects should be got under way far faster.
Irrespective of our argument about the lack of energy shown by the Government towards encouraging construction, we can probably all agree that it is essential for this country that we have a properly skilled labour force if we are to come out of recession and be able not just to build the roads, the houses and the infrastructure projects we need but to compete effectively in an increasingly competitive international market.
Training and the skills shortage have been serious problems for the construction industry in Britain for far too long. Before the recession, it was estimated that two thirds of operatives in the construction industry had no formal training. The number of trainees registered with the CITB fell from 135,000 in the mid-1960s to fewer than 50,000 in 1988 before the recession. Since then, we have seen the dramatic fall in training to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford has referred. The number of youth trainees fell from 14,385 in 1989 to 8,500 in 1992 —a 40 per cent. reduction. Apprenticeship registrations are down by a similar percentage.
The report that the Department of Employment commissioned on the future skills needs of the construction industry sadly produced evidence at the end of 1991 that productivity levels in Britain still compared very badly with those of our European competitors. We must tackle that problem with determination. We need industrywide training if we are to succeed.
Anyone with a serious interest in and knowledge of construction in Britain knows perfectly well that a voluntary scheme will simply not deliver what is required. That view comes from people with a trade union perspective and from people with an employer's perspective.
The Building Employers Confederation is pretty adamant on the issue. It says emphatically:
Training in the construction industry is made particularly difficult because of the industry's structural characteristics: its national coverage; the highly competitive nature of its work ; scattered sites; short-term work load horizons which limit firms that train; the preponderance of small firms; mobility of labour-intensive sub-contracting and self-employment; the wide and ever-changing range of skills needs; and health and safety requirements.
Training has, therefore, to be nationally organised to national standards to meet the industry's needs. Collective funding is, thus, essential, and can only be effected through a statutory levy grant system which shares the cost of training and rewards firms that train.


If the levy is discontinued training will decline sharply, skill shortages will arise and productivity will suffer.
Thus the industry view is that the levy system must be retained.
Little could be more emphatic than that.
Bearing that view in mind, it is pretty depressing to record that the whole future of the CITB and the levy with which it finances its work have been in serious doubt in recent months. The Department of Employment review, the third in five years, has been dragging on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford rightly pointed out. That has caused, in the words of the Building Employers Federation,
de-stabilisation of…training policy in the industry.
What a way in which to run training in the construction industry when the Government's rhetoric is that we are coming out of recession and when all hon. Members believe that we should be trying to come out of recession. We need a skilled, motivated work force to enable us to do that.

Mr. Dobson: It is a job creation scheme for bureaucrats.

Mr. Raynsford: It is a job creation scheme for Ministers, who are shuffling paper around while they are undecided about what to do about the scheme.
It is time to put an end to that uncertainty. it is time for

the Government to put aside their foolish ideological hankering after deregulation and their suspicion of any collective action and collective ventures such as industrywide training. It is time for whole-hearted commitment to high quality training throughout the industry.
We need a Minister who will take the matter seriously; who will act with some urgency to reinforce training and to support training initiatives to give some sense of security to those involved in the process; encourage the achievement of higher standards; ensure an adequate level of funding for the levy; and see that the CITB is free from Government meddling for the next four years until the next general election.
I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford about the need to reconsider the small firms exemption, which has an extremely arbitrary cut-off point that provides for unfair competition for firms whose payroll and labour-only sub-contracting costs fall below the £45,000 limit.
We need a positive commitment, not the reluctant and half-heared, lukewarm attitude that we have heard from the Government Front Bench. We need to send a clear message that, if Britain is to come out of recession—the construction industry has a role to play in enabling that to happen—it needs a highly skilled work force, and that will be achieved only with effective industrywide training based on a proper financial arrangements.

11 pm

Sir Michael Neubert: Debates on the order are an annual event. They tend to follow the same form: a few introductory remarks from the Minister and a major contribution from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, eager to make his mark and to castigate the Government for every sin in the calendar. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr Lloyd) spoke for 30 minutes of the 90 minutes available to us.
The contents of the order are largely unchanged, but the background against which we debate it does change. I concur that the background this year is the devastation in the building and construction industry as a result of the longest and deepest recession since the second world war. However, the idea that that is Government-inspired is absurd, and defies belief. That idea undervalues and minimises the effect of the contribution of the hon. Member for Stretford.
I am the parliamentary adviser in the House of Commons to the Federation of Master Builders to which reference has already been made. It represents small and medium-sized builders who have been particularly hard hit. The recession has naturally taken its toll. The FMB used to have more than 20,000 members, but its membership has now dipped below that figure.
Members do not have the accumulated reserves and the earlier expansive profit margins of the large contractors. They can hang in there for a year or two. However, when the recession enters its third year, as it has now, they start to go under.
The Government's stated policy, particularly in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is very welcome, with its promise of labour-intensive major infrastructure projects, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr Raynsford), and the various forms of support for the housing market. However, the benefits tend to flow first to the major contractors and volume builders.
Work at supplier or sub-contractor level may follow from that afterwards, but only with a time lag. Small builders need work now. They are clinging on by their fingertips. None the less, the FMB fully supports the CITB and its statutory powers to raise a levy. It therefore supports the order. It believes in the supreme importance of training generally, in good times and in bad.
It is just as well that the CITB exists, because if the responsibility had been left on a voluntary basis, there would unquestionably have been a very sharp reduction in training—even sharper than has been the case. Small businesses that are under pressure will naturally look to cut corners and training would almost certainly have suffered as a consequence.
As it is, the CITB has drawn on £6.5 million of its reserves to embark on extra counter-cyclical training measures to combat the otherwise inevitable effects of recession. It has also worked closely with local enterprise companies and training and enterprise councils in joint enterprises to bring many millions more into play, as well as conducting its own grant-supported activity. That is to be welcomed and supported. Since our previous debate, I have had an opportunity of visiting its Norfolk headquarters in Bircham Newton, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if there is time.
No one should dispute the vital work of the CITB. After all, support for training is an expression of faith in the future. Recovery will come; the only question is when. For all those who are engaged in the construction industry, it is long overdue. Estimates have been made of the numbers who are likely to have been lost by the time recovery comes. The figure has been put as high as 600,000 construction operatives. Many of them will be lost to the industry for ever. If massive inflation in labour costs is to be avoided, we must have sufficient skilled craftsmen in place when the upturn comes.
Despite what has been said so derisively, there were signs of recovery a year or so ago. When I was campaigning in my constituency of Romford, in every street there were "house sold" boards. On the very eve of poll, on a building estate I saw the sign "bricklayers wanted". I thought that that was a sure signal that the recovery was here. As we know, that recovery was snuffed out, and it is easy to see why, by the recession in the German and American markets, which are both major markets for us. When we have a worldwide recession, it goes beyond all sense to suggest that it is entirely the work of the British Government. That has no credibility with the British public, and that is why they re-elected a Conservative Government last April.
The missing ingredient seems to be confidence. Everything else is present. We have low interest rates, low price rises, low wage settlements, high productivity and a competitive exchange rate. They mean that the formula exists for recovery to come—we must believe that it will. Nothing could be more calculated to boost confidence in construction than to see another sign saying "bricklayers wanted". It is the purpose of the CITB and the Government to ensure that sufficient skilled operatives are available when demand returns.
The principle is strongly supported, but the burden of training costs is not entirely equitable. Many small and medium sized businesses in particular would prefer to see contributions from all without exclusion. I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford, amazing as it might seem to him and to me. Those with a payroll cost of £45,000 or less secure exemption from the levy. Although there is an understandable reason for that—the need to encourage small business to emerge and to survive—those with more than three operatives see it as yet another illustration of unfair competition. In good times, one quarter of 1 per cent. of payroll costs might not seem very much, but in times as hard as these it is just one more disadvantage to carry in cut-throat competition.
Those who are struggling to survive at the bottom end of the market in a recession find themselves being ground small by upper and nether millstones. Above them they have the large contractors muscling in on their territory —one example given to me was of a major firm, almost a household name, bidding for the conversion of a house into two flats—and below them they have individuals or groups of individuals operating very largely without constraint or obligation, sometimes legally, sometimes illegally, getting work by word of mouth or small advertisements in local newspapers.
Legally, businesses operating below the VAT ceiling, for example, can undercut those above by 17·5 per cent. That is likely to be a considerable sum. As times are hard for the consumer as well as for the builder, it is a very substantial disadvantage. Nowhere else in the EC is the disadvantage so great. Our VAT threshold is at the


maximum of £36,000. In Belgium, Italy and Spain the threshold is nil. Apart from Ireland, which has different rates for services and goods, the next highest threshold is in France, just over £7,000. That is a unique burden of disadvantage.
VAT traders can, of course, offset costs on materials, but cowboy builders these days turn up at the local DIY and are able to buy their goods so cheaply that it does not much matter to them. Illegally, small legitimate builders face unfair competition from the black economy, in which it is a case of cash down and no questions asked. That is especially resented.
The loss of VAT, income tax and national insurance contributions should be a major concern for Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure that it is. How much effort is being made to recover those losses of revenue through fraud? Such fraud is of acute concern to small builders who operate above board and who struggle to make a living for themselves and their employees. In one country at least, I have heard that it is a criminal offence for work to be carried out without proper documentation and evidence of the transaction.
Who can blame legitimate builders for regarding the training levy, relatively small though it is, as yet another burden which is not borne by their competitors? Therefore, the FMB would like to see the exemption from the levy abolished. Despite the disadvantages de minimis, an obligation on all builders would ensure the proper importance of training, especially in health and safety matters, from the start, would remove the element of unfair competition and, what is more, would bring more funds to the function of training.

Mr. John Spellar: First, I declare an interest as a member sponsored by and political officer of the EETPU section of Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. If it will not do irreparable damage, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on his speech. I am not sure that he drew the conclusions that the rest of us would draw, but on analysis he has clearly identified many of the problems facing the industry. That is not a way of saying that we alumni of Bromley borough council must stick together.
The hon. Member for Romford was speaking on behalf of an industry which is being sorely pressed. I am especially sorry that he did not share our expression of disappointment at the Minister's failure to make an announcement tonight. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Minister was not able to make an announcement about his decision on the future of the CITB.
Frankly, the matter has been dragging on for far too long. It is causing considerable concern not only to employees and those on courses with the CITB but to the industry, which obviously has to make plans slightly more than six weeks in advance. The failure to make an announcement tonight—although there had been hints that we might get something by using this debate as the mechanism—will only add to the uncertainty and gloom in an industry which has had more than its fair share of uncertainty and gloom in the past couple of years. Not

only can we look backwards at the gloom in the industry, but we can reasonably look forward to another year in which the position will get even worse.
The housing starts and the downturn in work for architects' practices show that this year could well be much worse than the preceding one. The Government must bear considerable responsibility for that. Reference has been made to that responsibility. I should like to respond to an intervention made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover)—I am sorry that he is not in his place. He seemed to minimise the Government's responsibility or opportunity to deal with the problems of the work load.
The hon. Member for Chorley should examine the civil engineering industry, which is overwhelmingly dependent on the work from utilities and from Government Departments. The Government have a clear role and an opportunity to operate in that industry. We should not ignore the Government's responsibility in the private sector, especially in housing. Much of the downturn in the housing industry has resulted from a policy which was clearly, bluntly and explicitly expressed by a previous incarnation of the present Prime Minister, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in those famous words, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working." As we have heard in the debate tonight, the housing industry is especially hurting.
What makes the Minister's failure to make a clear statement tonight so extraordinary is that the case for the retention of the board is widely supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and by employers in the industry and the union. On a slightly cynical note, I thought that possibly the problem was that the Government listen to employers only when the employers want to disagree with the union, but if the employers agree with the union, they feel that the Government suspect collusion and conspiracy.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Like check-off.

Mr. Spellar: Yes, like check-off. If the employers agree with the union, somehow there must be something against the public interest. The position adopted in the rest of Europe is that the attitude towards the social partners is clearly understood and that therefore the Government's wish to work with them, rather than divide. Yet it is even more ironic that the major employers in the building industry are those to whom the Tory party continually trots for funds—that is when it is not going to Greek and Chinese millionaires.
The practical and realistic reasons which led the Government to retain the construction and engineering construction training boards when they disbanded others back in 1989 still hold true today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) rightly said, taking a considerable chunk out of my speech, the reason is the inherent nature of the industry. It is not simply that the arrangements are temporarily convenient to unions and management. The reason is the basic nature of the industry. It is by definition short-term. Employers and employees move from project to project and site to site. The work force on those sites are in continual flux as one trade goes off and another comes on.
Those are the factors which led the Government to recognise those realities in 1989. It is simply unfortunate that they have not come to a speedy decision tonight. The need for the training boards has been widely articulated across the industry. The chairman of the Construction


Industry Training Board is Sir Clifford Chetwood. Apart from holding that role, he is a major figure in the industry in his own right. In his foreword to the annual report of the CITB, he stated the position clearly:
It is therefore with some satisfaction I report that, by judicious use of reserves and by the application of a range of counter-cyclical measures"—
perhaps Ministers remember those—
CITB has been able to maintain training at an acceptable level during this period of deep recession in the industry.
He moved on to an area which, in the light of recent comments about being paid for working and so on, might strike a further resonance:
The Board's Youth Training and other programmes have attracted over £35 million from TECs and LECs. In addition to this expenditure, CITB has provided grant support, amounting to almost £40 million, to employers who have undertaken approved training.
Furthermore, on the development of the all-important qualifications for skills, he said:
Our work on the development of NVQs has resulted in these new qualifications now being available…for 28 construction occupations.
Reaffirming the industry's support, he said:
I am delighted that industry has, once again, confirmed its support for the policies and achievements of CITB by their strong consensus in favour of the statutory levy.
Some doubt was expressed earlier about the attitude of the Building Employers Confederation, which, it is fair to say, represents mainly the larger employers in the industry. The hon. Member for Romford spoke substantially on behalf of the smaller and medium-sized employers in the industry. It might have been though that BEC could operate better on its own and more independently. It has stated clearly:
The Building Employers Confederation is strongly in favour of the retention of the Construction Industry Training Board and of the statutory arrangements for the collection of levy in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory level of training in the construction industry.
It outlined some of the strong reasons why it felt that the CITB was an advantage to the industry. It pointed out the unique characteristics of the building industry, which have been mentioned several times in the debate, particularly the mobile nature of the work force. It also pointed out, as did Sir Clifford Chetwood, the ability of the CITB, which was probably better placed than many individual employers, to operate a counter-cyclical policy by investing the funds that it accumulated in good times to develop training in an essentially cyclical industry so that it had the trainees and skilled men available when industry picked up.
Furthermore, the BEC stressed the problem that has faced many industries—the poaching of skilled employees by companies which do not pay the levy. That has always been a difficulty for companies in engineering and so on, but it is of critical importance to employers in the building industry, again because the industry is highly mobile. Employers need to understand that if they undertake training they will not simply provide skilled workers for another firm which will pay an extra 50p or £1 an hour and attract those workers away. It is vital to the industry that that is not allowed to flourish.
The hon. Member for Romford effectively emphasised the need for all firms involved in the industry to be covered, so that some firms are not subject to unfair competition and there is a level playing field.
I shall not labour the point, but the BEC also mentions the problems that could be faced if there were any great dislocation of the industry, as many private providers of training could go out of business.
Finally, we must consider the number of youth training recruits who have been placed in the industry. Even in these difficult times, 10,000 youth training recruits have been placed in the industry this year. Those youngsters are being brought into the industry and provided with useful work, enabling them to envisage a potential future for themselves. As a result, the Government should seriously re-think. The Minister talks about an early announcement but time is ticking by. We are about six weeks away from the expiry of the Construction Industry Training Board, in April 1993. We need an early response from the Minister, and hopefully it will be a positive response to the debate.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: We have heard a number of important contributions. I must first declare an interest because the headquarters and the main training centre of the construction industry training board is in my constituency, as is the civil engineering college. Not only does the CITB employ many employees in a remote rural area, but many trainees come through west Norfolk who spend money on goods and services in the locality, so it is a crucial part of my constituency.
The Minister is well aware of my views on the subject. There has been unanimous support from both sides of the House for the principle of the statutory levy. The arguments have been put most forcefully and I shall not repeat them, save to say that I wholly endorse the principle because without it the CITB would be unable to carry on in its present form, which would be a disaster for the construction industry, not least for the reasons about voluntarism suggested today.
Safety has been overlooked. There are still far too many accidents and injuries—and some fatalities—on building sites, but there would be many more without the very high standards of the CITB.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) tried to goad me into rapping the Minister over the knuckles for not coming to the House with a firm decision. I should have been somewhat concerned at the lack of any announcement today, had I not already spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister on several occasions. I know him well and have great confidence in him. I am convinced that he has already made his mind up. He has not yet been able to cross the t's and dot the i's, which is why he cannot come to the House with a firm decision, but I have little doubt that he will come here shortly with a firm statement to say that the statutory levy will be kept and that the CITB will remain in place.
I think that the Minister realises that at the time of the last review the CITB was asked to do a number of things to satisfy the Secretary of State's requirements. It carried out a strategic review and I pay tribute to all the staff at Bircham and to CITB staff throughout the country who worked to the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State three years ago and fulfilled the conditions that he insisted upon. I believe that all the conditions have been met. The CITB has worked hard during that time to fulfil the obligations placed upon it to modernise, so that it can be a leading training organisation as we move into the 20th century.
The board has done a great deal despite the difficulties posed by the uncertainty; the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) referred to the problems caused by it. I can speak with experience about the uncertainty that has pervaded Bircham Newton in the past couple of years and particularly in the past few months. The board's staff are well paid, professional people who have made a commitment to west Norfolk by making their homes and raising their families there. They are concerned about their future and anxious that the organisation in which they believe should continue. I do not doubt that the Minister will soon make the decision to end that uncertainty.
When the decision is made to retain the statutory levy, and therefore to keep the CITB in its present form, I hope that the next review will not be set for at least four years. I hope that the cloud of uncertainty does not continue to hang over Bircham Newton. Although the board employs staff of the highest standards and sets standards which are admired throughout the world, it cannot be easy for the instructors to work in such a climate of uncertainty.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the CITB will not be subject to a review for at least four years. I am certain that my hon. Friend will make the right decision. Such a decision is important not only to my rural constituency, because many jobs depend upon it, but for the future of our construction industry. An overwhelming case has been put for the retention of the CITB. Our construction industry will lead us out of the recession, but to do so it needs the highest possible standards and the necessary skills. It will only retain those skills with the retention of the statutory levy.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said today. I am sure that we shall have to wait only a short time before he makes the final decision and I have little doubt that it will meet with widespread pleasure not only in the House but throughout the industry.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one part of the industry which comes within the remit of the CITB—the plant and equipment sector, which was mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have corresponded about a particular company in my constituency, a small business with three depots, the head of which is in Tiverton.
When the CITB agrees to give grants for training, it lays down certain criteria. The plant and equipment sector feels rather aggrieved at the fact that it has had to pay the levy, but has not qualified for grant. The criteria for eligibility for grant are that the training course should be related to the building and civil engineering industry.
The director of Howden Plant and Equipment Ltd., based in my constituency, has written to me as follows:
We do not feel that Non-operated Plant and Tool Hire companies such as ourselves should be subject to levy as we provide a service to the public and the Construction and Building Industries. We are not actually the 'Construction Industry' in the sense that the original CITB was set up to cover.
That company has two trainees on block release and a mature fitter on day release. It pays their training fees and

also their full salaries while on that training. The company has been denied grant by the CITB and, to boot, is now subject to a fine of more than £1,100 for its proportion of the levy—yet no contribution from that levy went towards the training courses offered by that company.
When my hon. Friend prepares his review of the CITB, he should consider the plant and tool equipment sector carefully. As Howden Plant and Equipment states, it is a small business. Hon. Members have already mentioned the £45,000 threshold and its effect on such small businesses. Hon. Members will also appreciate that that small business, which has rightly sent its employees on the appropriate training courses for its sector of the industry, which has not received any grant aid from the CITB but which is still paying the levy and which has shown itself to be a responsible employer, still feels that it is being penalised because of its statutory obligations.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message on board when he comes to the House to give his decision on the review of the CITB.

Mr. McLoughlin: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown great interest in the CITB tonight. If I cannot give a full answer to, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden), I shall write to them in due course about the specific problems that they raised.
I am amazed that Opposition Members should complain about the time that we have taken over the review. The Labour party has seen quite a number of reviews over the past few years. First, there was Lord Callaghan's review of why Labour lost in 1979; that was not very successful. Then there was the review by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), when he first became leader of the party; then, following another election defeat, there was another review. Yet we are told by the new Leader of the Opposition that there is to be yet another. After 14 years, Labour is still reviewing things. It has come to no answers—certainly no answer which have satisfied the time scale for reviews.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is good knockabout stuff, but the House would also like to know then the Minister intends to announce the results of the review.

Mr. McLoughlin: As I have said quite openly, both during this debate and on other occasions, we hope to come to the review shortly. It is clearly not the case that we have only six weeks; reconstitution of the CITB will take place in May this year, so there is some time to go. However, I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who has a direct constituency interest: the sooner the announcement can be made, the better it will be for everyone concerned. My hon. Friend made a number of important points, which I shall consider carefully. The review was set in train some years ago, and I appreciate the time scale problems. I cannot pre-empt the Government's decision by following the attractive route mapped out by my hon. Friend, but I shall take into account what he said when we make our decision.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) wondered whether we ever talked to the Department for Education, and expressed particular concern about the new arrangements for college funding. Of course we talk to the


Department; the points raised by the hon. Gentleman have been raised with me when I have met the Building Employers Confederation, and we shall make the necessary representations. I regularly meet the Minister responsible for higher education to discuss matters which are of interest to both the Department of Employment and the Department of Education. It is nonsense to suggest that there is no communication between the two Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown specifically mentioned the way in which the levy had been applied to a firm in his constituency. I shall look into that in more detail, but he willl understand that I cannot give him a direct answer now. The sort of points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and for Kempton will no doubt be put to us in the course of the review. When there is a levy on an industry, it is right that those paying it should feel that they are well served by the training boards to which they are obliged to contribute.
In the course of the review, we shall consider all the representations made to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) asked what the levy should be. I understand his point of view. Small businesses may feel that without the exemptions the levy might be too complicated and difficult to collect. Far from reducing the number of problems with the black economy, which my hon. Friend pointed out, the payment of another levy might exacerbate them.
There have been a number of representations on this very point—some arguing, like my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), that the rate should be reduced, others asking for an increase in the number of exemptions. We shall consider these ideas carefully.
We have had a wide-ranging debate on the future of the CITB, and I hope shortly to be able to make an announcement. The levy has received support from hon. Members on both sides, and I commend the orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 30 November, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

INTERNATIONAL RAILWAYS TARIFFS

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Railways Tariffs Agreements) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

SCOTTISH HOSPITAL TRUSTS

That the draft Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1993, which was laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

European Community Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.).

HAZARDOUS WASTE (INCINERATION)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5761/92 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 26 January 1993, relating to the incineration of hazardous waste and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that instruments of this type contain strict but achievable, and monitorable, combustion conditions and emission limits in order to minimise the risks of pollution from incinerators, which represent an important waste disposal option.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.).

PENSION FUNDS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9752/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Social Security on 10 March 1992, relating to the management and investment of pension funds; and endorses the Government's view that the terms of the draft Directive will benefit the United Kingdom by enabling non-United Kingdom pension funds to invest in the United Kingdom and to employ the services of United Kingdom fund managers.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

Airlines (Competition)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Sir Keith Speed: I am glad to have the opportunity to concentrate on some aspects of international competition between the airlines serving the United Kingdom. I do not intend to deal with internal competition or with the slot problems at Heathrow, about which we have heard a great deal in recent times. I am sure that the Minister will be glad to hear that.
I am getting tired of sections of the media, the general public and others continually saying how uncompetitive British industry and British commerce are vis-a-vis Europe. By and large that is not true. It is especially not true of our airlines. None of them is state-owned. They do not receive subsidies, yet they provide high-quality service both for the customers and for the shareholders, without any assistance from the taxpayer. That goes for British Airways, British Midland, Virgin Atlantic and Britannia. These and many others are doing a great deal for the United Kingdom economy.
The same, alas, is not true of some of the airlines of our European partners. Many of them are wholly or partly state-owned. Many of them have overt or hidden subsidies. Some of us believe that the creation of a single European market on 1 January this year and the liberalisation of air services in the "third package" should have brought about the conditions for real competition in European air transport.
British airlines have nothing to fear and much to gain from fair competition, but is the competition fair? All the national flag carriers in the European Community, with the exception of British Airways, have state shareholdings, and usually the majority of the shares are Government-owned. That is okay, provided that Government money is not put into the airlines without any check or accountability or an examination of the airline's viability.
It is quite clear that many of the European airlines that have received Government money are not viable and that the share subscription or loans or other funds are put into those airlines on terms and conditions that are not available to private companies. Any Government guarantees to airlines in the EC must be valued and taken into account when the whole issue is properly looked at. Mergers or substantial financial investment in other companies should be examined with special care to make sure there is a proper market strategy that is subject to scrutiny by the competition authorities. That means that there should be no question of subsidies enabling an airline in country A to have a major investment in an airline of country B.
Air France recently took a controlling stake in the Czechoslovakian airline, CSA. The deal was financed by French state banks and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Air France and its partner, Sabena, have also been able to pass on to CSA several of their excess Boeing aircraft orders. Air France, with the backing of the French Government, has managed to achieve a controlling interest in one of the emerging central European airlines.
Air France has also had new state aid for restructuring totalling some FF3,250 million. Iberia, the national airline of Spain, has had significant new state finance totaling

$1.2 billion. Al Italia, the state airline of Italy, has had over 25,000 million lire in contributions and grants from the European social fund and unspecified contributions from the Sicilian authorities towards promotion and advertising of the airline. Sabena was granted just under $1 billion in 1991 by the Belgian Government and other public authorities to sort out its problems at that time.
None of those grants or aids is subject to the stringent public service obligations that should be properly examined by the European Commission and the relevant national Governments. I am afraid that the situation is no better in terms of regulatory charges, which involve quite large sums. In the United Kingdom, the Civil Aviation Authority has to recover all its costs from the United Kingdom airlines and make a return on capital. That is right, and I pay tribute to the CAA for its work and its high standards. It does not cost the taxpayer a penny, but it means that our airlines have to make the equivalent of a recovery of 108 per cent. of the regulatory costs charged to them by the CAA. In the case of British Airways, that amounts to tens of millions of pounds each year for the services provided by the CAA.
Let us examine the position in Europe. Belgium recovers less than 5 per cent. from its airline; the rest is paid from taxation. Denmark is better, because it recovers 70 per cent. and is working towards 100 per cent.
In France, only 64 per cent. is recovered from the airlines; in Germany, from Lufthansa and others, only 15 per cent.; in Greece, only 14 per cent. In Holland it is better, with 55 per cent. recovered, largely from KLM. in Spain, from Iberia and other Spanish airlines, none is recovered. The entire sums are paid out of general taxation, because it is in the interests of the Spanish airlines. That is not good enough, and it means that national airlines gain a considerable subsidy from the Governments of those countries.
Before that other great aviation country, the United States, becomes too smug, let me make it clear that its carriers are not able to survive against tough competition unless they have a certain protection when they get into great difficulties. That is the protection from their creditors that is offered by chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code in the United States. That means that the prime aim of airline companies getting into difficulties and seeking protection under chapter 11 is to protect themselves from their creditors and generate cash flow rather than profit. They can continue trading without normal concerns for operating margins. The airlines operating under chapter 11 include Continental, which has embarked on a major advertising campaign in the UK, TWA and America West.
I hope that the Minister will agree that those European and transatlantic examples are to be condemned as unfair and subsidised competition, which, in 1993, casts doubts over the willingness of Governments to accept the implications of the single market and of competitive airlines that can operate within the rigours of the market.
Transparency, viability and the commercial regime should be the watchwords for the Commissioners in Brussels, and there is much still to be done. We should remind President Clinton and others in the new American Administration that chapter 11 solves nothing and distorts competition, not least to existing viable US airlines such as Delta, United and American.
The airlines are in a disgraceful situation. British airlines are trying to compete—indeed, are competing successfully and profitably—with their hands tied behind their backs.
I conclude by quoting the last paragraph of the report from the Air Transport Users Committee for 1992:
The achievement of the single market for air transport has the potential to bring great benefits for consumers, but these benefits can easily he negated unless the Commission makes full and effective use of its powers under the Treaty to ensure that all carriers are able to compete on level terms. The greatest threat to the success of the Community's policies is in this vital sector of the economy lies in the distorting effect of state aids, and the Commission must use its powers under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to ensure that such aids are not only banned in law but also in reality.
I could not put it better, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that the UK Government are taking a firm line with the less efficient, less viable, subsidised airlines in Europe and the US.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on raising such an important subject. I echo his sentiments about the immensely impressive progress that our aviation industry has made in general over the past few years. The cornerstone of that progress is a policy which has been remarkably successful. It is one that is based on competition, and it is focused on two fundamental concerns. First, there is the need to encourage a healthy aviation industry in the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is the need to facilitate customer choice as between airlines. The two concerns go very much together.
I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with the Government's firm belief that the pattern of air services and the fares charged should, as far as possible, be decided by the market. No outside influences should be allowed artificially to restrict the services available to the public and no collusion should be allowed to keep the prices charged unnecessarily high. It follows that those in the aviation industry who provide the right service profitably at the lowest price should thrive, but to do so they should be continuously open to challenge by competitors, and the barriers to new services should be minimal.
That belief remains the cornerstone of our approach to airline competition policy, because it is as true today as it ever was that competition gives customers choice. Competition between carriers produces better service to consumers as competing carriers seek to build new business and attract business from one to another by offering better deals and better services which better match what customers want.
We also continue to support the need for effective safeguard mechanisms to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, which is the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. It is vital for the maintenance of open and fair competition that all complaints of anti-competitive behaviour can be examined, and with appropriate speed.
Before I outline the arrangements which have been established in the European Community, I wish to echo my hon. Friend's praise of the United Kingdom aviation industry. We have a great deal to be proud about. In the United Kingdom there are 45 airlines. We have more airlines than any other country in the world, with the

exception of the United States. More than three quarters of our airlines—34—are licensed to operate international services. Quality as well as quantity has resulted from bringing competition to our home market. British Airways, British Midland, Britannia, Monarch and Virgin are all world leaders which are renowned for their service.
It is gratifying that so many United Kingdom carriers exemplify what a successful air carrier should be. They are financially strong, innovative and competitive. Perhaps most importantly, they are privately owned. They owe allegiance to no one but their shareholders and they operate wholly according to their own commercial expertise as inspired by customers' wishes. Lord King, during his 12 years as chairman of British Airways, succeeded in transforming BA from an airline which was known by its initials—I do not know whether this is unparliamentary—as bloody awful, into one which is among the finest in the world, if not the finest. That is the position on any test. I know that many hon. Members wish Lord King continued success in his role as president of BA.
Having seen at first hand the benefits of competition in our home market—benefits for consumers, the airlines, airports and the economy—we are keen to take the lead elsewhere. I am sure that United Kingdom carriers will be prominant in seeking to open up new markets and attract new passengers. So I fully expect United Kingdom air carriers to be introducing new ideas and services and to be setting new standards for service, pricing and frequency in order to generate business and make profits. I look forward to seeing the privately owned and commercially minded United Kingdom carriers benefiting most from the opportunities presented by liberalisation both within the Community's air transport market and elsewhere.
The United Kingdom has played a leading part in the arrangements which have been established in the Community. Here the results of our liberalisation policy have been impressive—even in the face of doubt caused by the fears of some about competition, itself heightened by the world-wide recession.
The European Community licensing arrangements which have been established are crucial because they identify carriers licensed by the United Kingdom and other member states as "Community air carriers". That now means something, as a Community air carrier has the freedom to establish anywhere in the EC, to attract EC and other investment, and to provide services within the EC. With the United Kingdom very clearly in the vanguard, the EC has decisively banished the old, outdated traditional system characterised by nationalism and protectionism, in which the consumer has been the principal loser, and instead established a truly liberal single market in air transport on 1 January this year. It would be over-ambitious to expect dramatic changes to take place overnight, but the single market created by the third liberalisation package sets the ground rules and creates the opportunities for the aviation industry of the future in Europe.
By introducing common criteria for operator licensing —in other words, removing the possibility of flag carriers being given preferential treatment—and by removing restrictions on market access and pricing through the EC, all Community carriers have now been put on an equal footing. The market is now open to those with a stomach for a competitive environment, and the onus is on carrier to offer the sort of services that the customer requires and to set fares in the light of market conditions, rather than


by cosy agreements with Government. This gives a green light to carriers which are prepared to go out and win business—provided always, of course, that they are safe; there has never been any suggestion that safety standards would be compromised.
I was sorry when my hon. Friend announced at the beginning of his speech that he did not intend to mention slots at Heathrow, as I had prepared an extensive part of my speech to deal with that—[Interruption]. I accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to regurgitate at least part of what I had prepared.
I am immensely proud to say that BA holds a smaller proportion of slots at Heathrow than many of its major EC competitors hold at their base airports, which demonstrates the success of our competition policy. For example, it holds a smaller proportion of the Heathrow slots than Lufthansa holds at Frankfurt and Munich, Iberia at Madrid, Sabena at Brussels and Air France at Charles de Gaulle. That is directly relevant to the thrust of the first two major points that my hon. Friend made about the extent to which national airlines rely on state aid.
We regard it as essential that we follow up the liberalisation agreement with progress in the key area of state aid. Cash injections to state-owned airlines on terms which would not be available in the private sector place those carriers at a distinct and unfair competitive advantage. Those injections are made in large individual cash lump sums, of which my hon. Friend gave examples, or in subsidised regulatory fees, for which the Civil Aviation Authority endeavours fully to recover costs. My hon. Friend is right to point out that that practice is not followed across the Community, and there is clearly scope for further work on precisely that point. We are quite clear that state aid should be rigorously controlled, and where terms would not be available in the private sector those state aids should not be allowed.
The Commission published guidelines on aviation state aid in 1984. They are nine years old now, so we have sought the uprating of existing Commission guidelines to tie in with the single market under the changes in the legal framework in recent years. The Commission's commitment to do so is therefore welcome. It is important that the Commission applies the guidelines in a way which is consistent with the concept of a liberal single market, and we shall continue to press for that. We shall also continue to ensure that cases of anti-competitive behaviour are dealt with rigorously within the framework of effective safeguards already in place.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment on each of the examples that he gave. I shall simply confine myself to sharing his concern about the logic that the Commission appeared to be pursuing in not finding some of the cases to which he referred obvious examples of state aid in circumstances which have conveyed an unfair competitive advantage.
The CAA currently has powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, EC regulations and supplementary domestic regulations to investigate complaints of anti-competitive practices made against United Kingdom carriers and to take appropriate remedies. Those powers

are part of the CAA's powers to vary carriers' EC operating licences or their United Kingdom non-EC route licences.
Member states can put their views to the Commission in cases where the free play of competition may have been distorted, and we shall continue positively and constructively to put forward the United Kingdom's views on individual cases.
United Kingdom carriers may make a complaint to the Commission under articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome, as my hon. Friend said. Article 86, which covers abuse of a dominant position, is also actionable in the United Kingdom courts. Special regulations apply the articles to aviation and give the Commission important powers to intervene. They include the so-called "cease and desist" regulation, which enables the Commission to take quick interim action to stop a small airline being driven out of business before there is time to put any of the other procedures into operation.
The third package is very good news. It helps airlines to generate more business and earn greater profits. Successful carriers operating in a free market are less likely to need Government financial backing and state aid. It will also benefit consumers, as an efficient and competitive airline market will bring the prospect of new, improved services and will put downward pressure on air fares.
I should like to say one last word on the viability and attractiveness, or otherwise, of European airlines. It is surely extraordinary that, despite the examples of continued state funding—let us put it no more strongly than that—by other Community Governments of their national flag carriers, and despite the fact that British Airways, an example of a former flag carrier which is still a proud flag carrier for British aviation, operates in the free market and is entirely dependent on convincing hankers of the value of its capital programme if it wishes to reinvest, it is British Airways which continues to set standards throughout the world, and does so with a profit.
That should be the test. There must be a lesson to be learnt by every European Government: it is not state intervention and constant state subsidy which produce better quality services, but forcing airlines to accept the rigours of the market and of competition on entirely free and equal terms. That is how to improve the quality of airlines throughout Europe, and it will benefit me, my hon. Friend, every hon. Member and every citizen in this country and in the Community.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of unfair competition from United States airlines cushioned by chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. We flagged the anti-competitive implications of that protection with the United States Government in the context of our wider talks on liberalisation. However, a review of chapter 11 has not been one of our priorities to date. The two United States airlines supported by chapter 11 which currently operate transatlantic services—TWA and Continental Airlines—are not significant players in the market.
I asked my officials to examine the number of flights that they operate in the UK. United States carriers—non-chapter 11 protected carriers—operate 41 services a day to London and six to the regions. United Kingdom carriers operate 31 services a day to London and three to the regions. That is a total of 72 flights to London every day by non-chapter 11 carriers.
Against that, TWA has one service a day to London and Continental Airlines has four. In summer 1993—the


period for which I am quoting the figures—TWA and Continental represent only about 6 per cent. of the market. However, although I make that point to explain to my hon. Friend that it has not been our first priority—it is also in the context of other liberalisation and trading issues that we are currently discussing with our American colleagues —it does not mean that we do not take the issue seriously. We are certainly ready to take the issue further if it represents a real problem for United Kingdom airlines.
My hon. Friend referred to the whole philosophy of chapter 11, which is that it does not allow the market to operate in its normal sense. Broadly speaking, when a carrier is no longer able to provide services profitably and has exhausted its credit, it simply disappears from the market and allows stronger carriers to take on the services. To that extent, my hon. Friend is right: the whole concept of chapter 11 is at odds with the concept of a free market.
Elsewhere, we have sought arrangements with countries in the far east, in Australasia, in Africa and in South America which allow scope for extra competition between airlines and flexibility on routing, capacity and pricing. Significant progress has already been made with Hong

Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, New Zealand, Brunei and South Africa, and we are currently in discussion with others in those regions.
As with all our moves towards the liberalisation of air services, we insist that safeguards must be put in place at the same time to protect against anti-competitive practices. That aspect of our policy is just as much in the interests of a healthy, competitive aviation industry as it is in the interests of air transport users.
I believe that my hon. Friend shares the conviction that the Government have led the way—within the Community, certainly—in establishing the parameters of the third liberalisation package. We have consistently led the way on the advantages of the free market. Through the strength of our domestic airlines, we have demonstrated that those policies are successful. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for continuing to press the important matters that he has raised today to ensure that the market works fairly and not to the disadvantage of United Kingdom carriers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve midnight.